Announcements A Joint Statement on Technical, legal, ethical and implementation concerns regarding Aarogya Setu and other apps introduced during COVID-19 in India by Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA), Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Forum for Medical Ethics Society (FMES), and All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN)   |   Submission to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on behalf of Hub5 (HEaL Institute, APU, Seher-CHSJ, and IAPH) – COPASAH on human rights issues confronted by ASHAS and ANMs during the Covid-19 pandemic | Aug 7, 2020   |   Letter to MMC by FMES, PUCL-MH, FAOW, and MFC urging to restore its order suspending licenses of two doctors accused of abetting the suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi

Reforming the Medical Council of India

Shashank S Tiwari

DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2015.019


The recent editorials by Dr George Thomas and Dr Sunil K Pandya in the IJME with respect to the functioning of the Medical Council of India (MCI) force us to think about how reforms can be introduced inthe MCI. Dr Pandya suggests that we would do well to learn a lesson from the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom (UK). It is true that the MCI can learn from many aspects of the GMC reforms which were introduced in the 1980s, especially after the Bristol case1 and the Shipman affair2. One of the most notable reforms introduced by the GMC was greater representation of lay members in its fitness-to-practice committee. At the moment, there are equal numbers of medical and lay members in the GMC. This suggests that the public has an equally important role as do physicians in regulating clinicians in the UK. In contrast, in the MCI, there is not a single representative of the public among the total of 89 members under different categories. As for the GMC, of its 12 members, half (ie six) are from among the public.

Full Text





There are currently no refbacks.

Article Views

PDF Downloads

Click here to support US