Another reader has submitted a topic for discussion on Singapore MD:
"I received a letter from MOH the other day outlining DMS' vision for transforming postgraduate medical education. It ended with a call for participation in dialogue sessions.
I threw the letter away.
The fact that MOH has decided to hold dialogue sessions only after all the major decisions have been made only goes to show that MOH deals with our professional body in a paternalistic manner. Dialogues inevitably end up becoming monologues. Little wonder why MOH's initiatives rarely gains any support from the ground.
If I may suggest, perhaps, we can have a discussion on what it would take for MOH to gain the confidence and support of the body of physicians that it needs to work with, rather than dictate to."
angry doc
I tend to agree with our contributor's observation - I just yesterday received a letter from MOH informing me that the planned amendment to the Medical Registration Act will pretty much carry on: SMC will still have "the option" of appointing a legally-trained person to a disciplinary tribunal, except that now that person may be appointed as either the chairperson, or as a voting member.
How this round of "dialogue" will alter the plans for a new training system I do not know, but I am keen to attend one of these sessions just to get a ground feel.
See you all there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The letter stated that the legally trained person has no voting rights. It makes me wonder what's the purpose of adding him if he does not have voting rights?
And for the major transformation in the medical training system - several of us were not told of its coming. Even until now, many of the details and how it is going to affect us were not fully described. We are just forced to accept what is being dished out to us. Do we have a choice?
Apparently town hall meetings have been around for a long time. But they are a feature mainly of 'democratic' societies. For example, in the democratic city state of Athens, citizens met regularly to make decisions affecting their community. More recently it became more of an American concept and practice. Town hall meetings can be initiated by leaders or members of the community, grass root organizations etc, but the fundamental idea was that it was an opportunity for community based opinions to be heard about impending issues affecting their community, and for community leaders and the community members to be in touch and hear each other out.
(excerpted from my Gigamole post)
The letter on the Medical Registration Act amendments was a little disappointing as it attempted to draw conclusions not supported by the data.
The second para read:
"Our letter was sent out to 7983 medical practitioners. 7514 chose not to respond. This silent majority presumably did not have strong feelings about the amendment"
Basic EBM rule No#1 - there are risks in drawing a conclusion without supporting data. I would like to know how many of the 7514 did not respond to the letter because they had already given feedback earlier during the public consultation (myself!), because they were too busy as junior doctors trying to get training without the benefit of a "transformed postgraduate medical education", because they have given up hope that their opinions will be taken seriously etc etc
I would favour a more in depth interview of a sample selected by a good statistician (and there are plenty at MOH) to determine which of the above (or any other reasons) are the real reasons why people did not respond to the letter. Another alternative is to employ the same strategy used for the SMC elections - make giving an opinion compulsory via telephone voting! That is a very good system which is convenient and allows the elected SMC members to claim a strong mandate.
I may be wrong but without solid rigorous data, the claim that the medical community supports the amendments does not appear to be evidence based.
:) touche.
it's a nice convenient way to establish a false consensus about a contentious issue.
Remember the organ trade consensus?
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/01/human-organ-trade-fait-accompli-why-am.html
I think that line was a political mistake. It would have been better to leave that line out and let the readers draw their own conclusions as to why 94% of the doctors did not reply, than to display an eagerness to claim a mandate, which in fact showed more insecurity.
There are other ways to look at the statistics, of course.
One could conclude that 2/3 of the doctors who responded did not agree that the proposed amendment should go through, for example.
Or that 94% of doctors did not think that their feedback would be taken into consideration by MOH.
in reference to prof tambyah's reply, I was wondering if anyone in the know can enlighten us as to what exactly is SMC's working relationship with MOH? I had the impression that it is supposed to be an independent self governing professional body. but personal observations seem to indicate that the SMC is subject to MOH's orders.
incidentally, I did not know that the SMC elections had compulsory telephone voting. personally, I did not receive any phone calls, nor did anyone else that I know. perhaps, only the seniors are being polled...
~medicalgrounds~
They used to be very serious with the SMC voting.....
Still remember getting letters from SMC years ago with 'datelines' for voting through the telephone.
Failing to comply would incur fines of a couple of hundred bucks....if I remember correctly......
Council Members
The SMC comprises a total of 19 members, including the President and the Registrar. 9 of the members are elected by registered medical practitioners and the other 9 are appointed by the Minister for Health. The Council Members are:
President Prof Ong Yong Yau
Registrar Prof K Satku
NUS Nominees
Prof Robert Pho Wan Cheng
Prof John Wong Eu Li
Elected Members
Dr Chua Boon Ling
Prof Ng Han Seong
Dr Wilmot Rasanayagam
A/Prof Siow Jin Keat
Dr Tan Chi Chiu
Dr Tan Kok Soo
Clinical Prof Tay Boon Keng
Dr Wong Sin Yew
Dr Wong Yue Sie
Appointed Members
A/Prof Chin Jing Jih
Prof Ho Lai Yun
Dr Lim Cheok Peng
A/Prof Ong Biauw Chi
A/Prof Benjamin Ong
Prof Walter Tan Tiang Lee
MOH appoints 50% of the council members. In political terms you can infer what that means. There are pros and cons in having it that way.
Post a Comment