LETTERS
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2011.078
The Clinical Establishment Act, 2010: need for transparency
The article on the Indian Medical Association and the Clinical Establishment Act (CEA), 2010 (1), was well written and showed the author’s grasp of the state of affairs in the bureaucracy. The opposition to the CEA is largely because of private practitioners’ fear of extortion in the hands of ‘babus’. The government should let health be administered by health professionals rather than by babus who are typically both junior in service to government doctors and also have lower pay scales, at least at the district level. Since senior government doctors resent being commanded by a junior government officer, the honest and the expert keep away from government service. The CEA will bring private practitioners under the direct control of bureaucrats. This state of affairs is largely unacceptable to the medical profession, what with the rampant corruption in the bureaucracy. Extortion is already rampant in the case of the Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. And if that law is any indication, the CEA, when it is implemented, will turn out to be the biggest legalised extortion racket in the world. Obviously people cannot say this on public platforms, which is why there have been many voices saying different things which might sound like irrational ramblings. But the stand of the IMA — that registration should be online (to eliminate the need to pay any suvidha shulk) and accreditation should be optional and done by an independent agency — more than speaks for the underlying apprehensions of its members.
Note:
The above is not an official communiqué but the personal views of the writer.
Amitabh Shrivastava, honorary secretary, IMA Branch Etawah e-mail: [email protected]
References
- Phadke A. The Indian Medical Association and the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010: irrational opposition to regulation. Indian J Med Ethics. 2010 Oct-Dec; 7(4): 229-31.
