THERE is much wailing in the ranks of the medical profession at plans to extend the qualification period for doctors by two years. While there are grounds for protest at the way the issue is being handled, it is difficult to understand what is wrong with the principle.
Unfortunately the proposal is surrounded by a degree of confusion that is handicapping public debate. The Interim Medical and Dental Council, which is behind the move, is presenting it as an extension to training aimed at improving the standard of medical qualification. There are grounds for suspicion, however, that the council is reacting to pressure from government which is keen to exact a couple of years’ community service in return for the taxpayers’ contribution to the costly education of medical students.
The proposal can best be seen as a combination of both — as a form of national service with a beneficial spin-off in terms of training. As such it is to be welcomed. National service is hardly an alien concept in South Africa and the war against poverty, disease and social deprivation is a far more worthy cause in which to expend a couple of years of one’s life than the defence of apartheid. And if it is the judgment of the leaders of the profession that medical students need more than their present seven years’ training, that needs be respected.
At the same time it is manifestly unfair to apply the new rule to students nearing the end of their final year — it smacks of retrospective law- making and that is anathema.
The imposition of an additional two years is also too radical, certainly at the outset of the scheme. The two years should include the existing year’s internship, at least for those students who have already registered for their degrees. There could also be provision for students to “buy out” the final year, by re-paying the state subsidy for their training.
It would also be unfair to single out medical students for this form of national service. Similar arrangements should be introduced for other professions — engineers, lawyers etc — who should be invited to contribute a post-graduate stint (the periods can vary) to public service, again with “buy-out” provisions.
The entire scheme should be packaged in such a way as to make service a matter of pride; having done their “bit for society”, graduates can have easy(ier) consciences when they go on to exploit their state-funded training to enjoy the good things of life.