The now entrenched
demand that those who apply for masters straining in clinical subjects obtain indemnity
cover had generated more heat than light. Many an applicant would like to know
why this is paramount before one is even considered for interviews.
From the onset, my
personal opinion about this requirement is a big nay. Professional indemnity
takes over in cases one, practicing on their own is involved in a legal suit
arising from acts of omission or commission while discharging duties of their
profession.
For started, persons
applying and joining teaching hospitals do so to be taught and are not in any
way entitled (whatever they do in these facilities cannot be termed as private
practice) do private practice.
It is therefore
expected that these apprentices who act and discharge their duties at the
behest of their tutors are at all times guided and whatever they do is at all
times interrogated. Thus the teachers must indemnify the trainees by bearing
overall responsibility. Moreover, the teachers in medical school do not in any
way participate in deciding who presents for treatment, procurement of supplies
and support services and overall quality of care. Thus, to indemnify trainees on
the assumption that the working and/or training environment is in a way that
favors best practices is sheer naivety.
So who should take
responsibility in indemnifying against unwanted treatment outcomes? My
considered opinion is that the training facilities ultimately should bear overall
responsibility. They are the custodians of quality and all attributes of
quality, processes, staffing and procurement processes. In addition, they
define the nature of patients who patronize their facility. Hence it cannot be
that having envisaged possible shortcomings in their quality assurance, the training
institutions would rush to demand legally unfounded indemnity
That said, the training
facilities act with absolute discretion to determine what to demand and what not
to demand for. Furthermore such single handed decisions are passed to training institutions
who are arm twisted to pass it to trainees without raising queries due to
loosely crafted memorandum of understanding. The same MOUs allow universities
turn a blind eye when hospitals mistreat, discriminate and intimidate their
students due to fear of unspecified consequences
Finally, there is one
entity that should define this ranging debate on PIs as prerequisite for
application and short listing for post graduate training. This is the courts!
The regulatory bodies such as Medical Board and Poisons Board lack locus standi
to dictate to other state agencies and training schools and hospitals on what
to list as minimum requirements for application. At best these interested
regulators can provide an opinion what may be adopted on ignored by the
universities/training hospitals. And that is my opinion