Sunday Times 2
SAITM medical degrees: Here’s a second opinion
View(s):By M. Jinadasa
SAITM students stage a protest demanding that their right to higher education be recognised
Hours and hours of twiddling our thumbs outside Medical Consultants’ rooms awaiting admission to their “godly” presence, is all what it takes to realize the dearth of qualified doctors in Sri Lanka. My adverse views on the ETKA took a 180 degree turn, in the span of one and half hours at a private hospital waiting for my Consultant to show up for his appointment. The need for more doctors has become a top priority in the Country and in the face of State’s inability to commit the required finances to expand the State medical colleges, I can fully understand why successive governments have supported the concept of Private Medical Colleges in Sri Lanka.
I have carefully studied the issue relating to SAITM and had the benefit of perusing various expert reports and visiting the said University. I have also gained first hand information about the establishment through my professional relations with the said institution. I find the following facts interesting:
There are three groups that appear to object to SAITM, namely, the University Student Bodies, the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) and the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA). All three parties have a vested interest in objecting to SAITM, as restricting the intake to the medical profession makes their members a highly valued and sought after commodity in the country.
All three groups have stated that the SAITM degree is unacceptable but only the SLMC and the eight deans of state medical faculties have issued reports citing their specific concerns. As far as the GMOA and the university student bodies are concerned, no specific allegation has been made against the degree itself and the allegations are vague and nebulous.
Clinical exposure
The SLMC and the eight state medical faculty deans have not faulted the SAITM’s course study but their criticism lies on the lack of adequate clinical exposure for the students. This can easily be remedied by permitting the SAITM students access to state hospitals. The Health Ministry has permitted such access, for which payment is made by SAITM. In addition SAITM has also pledged and/or is willing to pledge financial aid for the maintenance and upkeep of the hospitals in which their students train, which is an added benefit to the country. This problem of adequate lack of clinical exposure, therefore, appears to be solved at present.
University student bodies and the GMOA claim that SAITM has been improperly established, but has to date failed to specify the alleged irregularity. A careful study of this issue reveals that no such irregularity exists. SAITM has acquired its degree awarding status after full compliance with the law and after undergoing due assessments from several Committees appointed by University Grants Commission.
SAITM students taking part in academic activities: Pic courtesy saitm.edu.lk
The report submitted by the eight state medical faculty deans has been prepared without visiting or contacting SAITM for their views and is based purely on third party accounts. The lack of sufficient verification of facts by this panel is best exposed by its colossal blunder in assuming that the agreement between Nizhny Novgorod State Medical Academy (NNMSA) Russia and SAITM to conduct the MD degree programme has been terminated in October 2015 when, in fact, this agreement is still in existence to date, and there is written confirmation of this fact by NNMSA, a university recognised by the SLMC.
From the time of acquiring the degree awarding status, SAITM has invited and included members nominated by the University Grants Commission in its Council, Senate and Admission Panel.
SAITM has been periodically subject to institutional and subject reviews by committees comprising eminent persons appointed by the Secretary to the Higher Education Ministry, which is the specified authority for non-state degree awarding institutes.
A comparison of the stringent procedure adopted by the state to recognise SAITM as a degree awarding institute and the procedure adopted to recognise the medical degree awarded by the Medical Faculty of the Kotalawela Defence University will convince the public that the State has been extremely circumspect and has taken precautions to ensure the good quality of the degree awarded by SAITM.
Specified authority
SAITM was recognised as a degree awarding institution prior to the publication of the said gazette notifications introducing the requirement of a Compliance Certificate. Upon the publication of the gazette notifications, SAITM has made every endeavour to ascertain from the Higher Education Ministry the identity of the specified professional body for the purpose of securing the Compliance Certificate. However, the ministry was unable to identify this body. Furthermore, the SLMC, which is required to function under the provisions of Medical Ordinance (Chapter 105) is not vested with powers to issue such a ‘Certificate of Compliance’.
SAITM had at all times been eager to secure the Compliance Certificate as reflected by its correspondence with state entities and will do so no sooner the identity of the specified professional body is notified by the ministry. Until such time, it is reasonable to presume that SAITM has been justly afforded the same exemption that is afforded to the Kotalawela Defence Academy Medical Degree Programme.
Therefore, at present, in terms of section 29(1) of the Medical Ordinance, the SLMC is duty bound to register a holder of a degree awarding institute as a medical practitioner, if the other criteria specified therein are satisfied.
Although SAITM admitted two batches of students from or about 2015, both batches of students are for the same degree programme and there is only one academic programme for the year in respect of the two annual intakes. There are several reasons for having two intakes for this one academic programme:
a) The students from local schools have a different academic cycle to the students of international schools and foreign schools, which necessitates two intakes to be held every year for the same degree programme;
b) The 1st batch of intakes (which are the students from local schools) are provided with the opportunity to participate in the foundation programme which includes an English language course until the 2nd intake (comprising international school students and foreign students) is finalised. This process is of immense academic value to the local students who have to switch from the Sinhala medium to English medium when following the degree programme. Otherwise, students from international schools who have studied biological sciences in English have an advantage over the students from local schools, as they are more familiar with English terms. Furthermore it is a requirement to have the foundation course as a part of curriculum, according to the Subject Benchmark statement, to facilitate basic sciences, language, and other areas relevant to medicine.
A perusal of the SLMC inspection report reveals that signatories to this report had personal prejudice and/or bias, probably related to the SAITM’s decision to expel a student, a daughter of a signatory of the report, for disciplinary reasons and the matter is now before court. There is also a legal battle between the other signatory to the report and SAITM over a statement issued against the Hospital owned by SAITM. Accordingly, both signatories should not have been a party to this report.
The allegations on the basis that the establishment of the medical degree programme and the admission of new students were accompanied by serious irregularities are frivolous. No specific cases are cited in support of these allegations.
Clause 70 D of the Universities Act specifies stringent conditions in relation to the admission of students, the supervision of course of studies, the examination and the assessment of the qualifications of teaching staff. These are being strictly abided by SAITM. For example:
Admissions
The governance structure, under which SAITM functions, requires the consent of the Ministry of Higher Education (specified authority) for admissions of students. The eligibility requirements for selection to SAITM are above the minimum standards prescribed by the UGC. No student is admitted to SAITM’s MBBS programme without the approval of the specified authority. As such whether or not there is majority representation from the state higher education and health sector institutions for admissions of students is of no consequence as the final authority for admissions lies with the specified authority.
Conduct of the degree programme and examinations
At present SAITM’s examination panels consist of external examiners. The external examination panel for the final year students comprised eminent professionals from the state medical faculties and consultants who participate in final examinations of state medical faculties. In addition, professors and senior lecturers also participated in the final examinations.
The course of studies
The curriculum and the syllabus for the SAITM medical degree programme is prepared in accordance with the UGC’s benchmark statement for medicine. The programme is monitored and approved by the UGC’s review committee.
SAITM has provided scholarships at a cost of Rs. 500 million to date. SAITM is exploring the options for provision to be kept for the admission of students on student loans and increasing scholarships.
A proposal initiated by SAITM for public-private participation in the management of Dr. Neville Fernando Sri Lanka- Russia Friendship Hospital is being negotiated at present with the State. SAITM is willing to reach a negotiated arrangement on this issue which is beneficial to both parties and which is financially viable to maintain the hospital to the required standards of a private teaching hospital.