MTI-another fiasco in making

MTI-Another fiasco.
14/04/2009
Kamal Sidhu
Thanks Dr Ray and Kumar for their very informative article. Although the spirit behind the initiative, at least in theory, seems genuine but whole process seems to have significant flaws, which unfortunately have been seemingly ignored before rolling out the programme. I find it hard to convince myself as to what 'substantial training', can a doctor under the scheme get within a period of two years-even two years is subject to extension. When there are already hundreds of IMGs who would wish to get some training if offered, why we need more from overseas. Why not stop the exodus from the country itself? How can we embark on another short-sighted plan that seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the impending shortage in non-training posts across the trust, when memories from poor and chaotic workforce planning from the disastrous last few years are still afresh? For this programme to be mutually beneficial, the training offered should be at least extended to three to four years so that tangible benefits are achieved by such doctors and experience assimilated and taken back into the source countries. Secondly, currently the doctors under MTI hope to achieve a 'certificate of experience' after completion of two years. I am not sure as to what value this certificate holds when they go back into their country of origin. This amounts to nothing less than 'exploitation’. The way forward may be to allow doctors to undertake the Royal college membership examinations though usual channels so that they have a formal degree or additional qualification which makes it a 'fair deal'. Thirdly, we need more clarity as to what constitutes 'training' and that their salaries should be at least, equivalent to the relevant grade of UK doctors with appropriate seniority. Sadly, the argument put forward by DOH about duration of training is that Tier 1 system of immigration is only allowed for two years. But, does that justify it? Does that mean DOH can play with careers of such doctors? What is the desperation to go ahead without having a solid plan? It is a shame that in a developed country, two departments can not coordinate with each other especially when their planning in the past has been nothing less than a disaster. Sadly, despite all our concerns, there will be a lot of applicants as option of training for two years, gaining ‘experience’ and perhaps make some savings is still attractive from overseas . The role of BMA is certainly nowhere close to what is expected from the molst effective trade union of the country. As usual apart from issuing statements, it is not clear as to what efforts have they made. Such issues close to heart of IMGs seem to be of no or very low priority at the moment despite thousands of IMGs persevering to pay for their BMA membership. The standing of BMA as an organisation within ground workforce seems to be at an all time low. This seems to be reflecting on membership of BMA especially junior doctors especially IMGs. It is now up to us as IMGs to make our issues heard. BMA should in collaboration with other IMG organisations, start a campaign to create awareness amongst applicants under MTI.All leaders with ground force workers should write to the relevant authorities to modify the proposed plan so as to make it a better deal. After all, how may British graduates will take up such posts?