Undecided: Judgment reserved on MTI act
Drafted with good intention, can be improved, say advocates
Peshawar High Court. PHOTO: PPI
PESHAWAR:
A larger bench of Peshawar High Court headed by Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miakhel reserved its judgment regarding Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Medical and Teaching Institutions (MTI) Reforms Act 2015 after petitioners and respondents’ lawyers completed their arguments on Monday.
Conflict of interest
Arguing in favour of MTI Reforms Act 2015, one of the defendants’ lawyer Arshad Ali said the act made it mandatory for doctors to continue their private practice inside hospital. The session commenced with this remark wherein Justice Younis Taheem raised a question regarding conflict in doctors’ roles. “How can doctors simultaneously continue private practice and work at the out-patient department at the hospital?” Taheem asked. He added, “Is there any mechanism formulated or in practice to deal with such a situation?”
Ali argued private practice inside the hospital was made mandatory to ensure presence of senior doctors at hospitals so quality treatment to patients could be provided. “The doctors’ duties were divided into shifts where experienced doctors can provide better treatment to patients,” explained Ali.
However, Ali failed to satisfy the bench when Justice Taheem questioned him further and said, “Is it possible to make this system work where a less fortunate patient with a Rs10 receipt waits in one line and a more endowed patient willing to pay Rs1,000 fee waits in another line outside a senior doctor’s room?”
Ali replied all patients would be treated equally. He also said the act was passed with good intention and if there was any deficiency in the provision of better health care facilities, the act could be removed.
He also explained the claim made by paramedics – that MTI Reforms Act 2015 will not last long – was flawed since accountability was ensured. “Unlike Medical Health Institutions and Regulations of Healthcare Services Ordinance 2002, the MTI act gives civil servants the option to either merge their services with MTI or remain on the payroll of the health department,” Ali said. “The option was given because if any civil servant commits any wrongdoing, Board of Governors (BoG) cannot take action against him but he will be sent to his parent department where action can be initiated against him.”
“When perks and privileges of doctors under the act have been increased, why are doctors against the act?” the chief justice asked Shumail Butt, attorney representing Pakistan Paramedics Association. The attorney replied the act gave doctors two options—either merge with MTIs or remain civil servants on the health department’s payroll. “Officials want to remain civil servants since they will not lose their jobs in case MTIs are privatised in future,” he explained.
He also said only the federal government was responsible for making legislations related to research in the field of medical sciences. Butt added under the act, Rs3.80 billion was approved only for a few hundred and 18,000 paramedics were completely ignored.
Further grievances
Earlier, Pakistan Medical Association lawyer Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel argued deficiencies in the act made it inapplicable, impractical and discriminatory.
Kakakhel argued there was a separate cadre for running the administrative affairs of hospitals and the government was spending millions of rupees on administration-related training for hospitals abroad. “If a cadre already exists, what is the need for another one in the shape of the hospital director under MTI Act?” he asked.
Suspecting nepotism, Kakakhel said under Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) rules, the age limit for appointment at the post of BoG was 70 years and BoG Chairman Dr Nosherwan Barki was 78 year old and still serving the broad. “Dr Barki, petitioners’ lawyers claimed, is PTI chief Imran Khan’s cousin and has prepared the bill and got it passed from K-P Assembly,” he added.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2015.
A larger bench of Peshawar High Court headed by Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miakhel reserved its judgment regarding Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Medical and Teaching Institutions (MTI) Reforms Act 2015 after petitioners and respondents’ lawyers completed their arguments on Monday.
Conflict of interest
Arguing in favour of MTI Reforms Act 2015, one of the defendants’ lawyer Arshad Ali said the act made it mandatory for doctors to continue their private practice inside hospital. The session commenced with this remark wherein Justice Younis Taheem raised a question regarding conflict in doctors’ roles. “How can doctors simultaneously continue private practice and work at the out-patient department at the hospital?” Taheem asked. He added, “Is there any mechanism formulated or in practice to deal with such a situation?”
Ali argued private practice inside the hospital was made mandatory to ensure presence of senior doctors at hospitals so quality treatment to patients could be provided. “The doctors’ duties were divided into shifts where experienced doctors can provide better treatment to patients,” explained Ali.
However, Ali failed to satisfy the bench when Justice Taheem questioned him further and said, “Is it possible to make this system work where a less fortunate patient with a Rs10 receipt waits in one line and a more endowed patient willing to pay Rs1,000 fee waits in another line outside a senior doctor’s room?”
Ali replied all patients would be treated equally. He also said the act was passed with good intention and if there was any deficiency in the provision of better health care facilities, the act could be removed.
He also explained the claim made by paramedics – that MTI Reforms Act 2015 will not last long – was flawed since accountability was ensured. “Unlike Medical Health Institutions and Regulations of Healthcare Services Ordinance 2002, the MTI act gives civil servants the option to either merge their services with MTI or remain on the payroll of the health department,” Ali said. “The option was given because if any civil servant commits any wrongdoing, Board of Governors (BoG) cannot take action against him but he will be sent to his parent department where action can be initiated against him.”
“When perks and privileges of doctors under the act have been increased, why are doctors against the act?” the chief justice asked Shumail Butt, attorney representing Pakistan Paramedics Association. The attorney replied the act gave doctors two options—either merge with MTIs or remain civil servants on the health department’s payroll. “Officials want to remain civil servants since they will not lose their jobs in case MTIs are privatised in future,” he explained.
He also said only the federal government was responsible for making legislations related to research in the field of medical sciences. Butt added under the act, Rs3.80 billion was approved only for a few hundred and 18,000 paramedics were completely ignored.
Further grievances
Earlier, Pakistan Medical Association lawyer Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel argued deficiencies in the act made it inapplicable, impractical and discriminatory.
Kakakhel argued there was a separate cadre for running the administrative affairs of hospitals and the government was spending millions of rupees on administration-related training for hospitals abroad. “If a cadre already exists, what is the need for another one in the shape of the hospital director under MTI Act?” he asked.
Suspecting nepotism, Kakakhel said under Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) rules, the age limit for appointment at the post of BoG was 70 years and BoG Chairman Dr Nosherwan Barki was 78 year old and still serving the broad. “Dr Barki, petitioners’ lawyers claimed, is PTI chief Imran Khan’s cousin and has prepared the bill and got it passed from K-P Assembly,” he added.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2015.