No, not this one, but this post by Dr Huang.
angry doc has worked with and still works with doctors from other countries. Other than the feeling that we might be 'exporting our healthcare problem' by poaching doctors from countries which may already be suffering from a shortage of doctors, angry doc doesn't really have a problem with 'importing' foreign doctors, in general or with regards to which medical school they graduated from, or what qualifications they held.
To use a cliche, there are good and bad doctors everywhere.
In fact, angry doc can't remember when the last time it was he asked a foreign doctor which medical school he graduated from (he is more likely to ask that question of a Singaporean doctor who has graduated overseas...). His opinion of his colleagues (foreign and local) depends not on which school they came from, or if they were on the Dean's List or Honour Roll, but how they performed as doctors, and functioned as colleagues.
Graduating from a top medical school does not automatically make one a good doctor, nor does graduating from a low-ranking medical school mean one will not become a good doctor.
Just as there is no guarantee that a graduate from our local medical school will not turn out to be disgrace to the profession, there can be no guarantee that limiting recruitment to a few top medical schools will bring in only doctors who will be an asset to our healthcare system. It takes time to find out if someone can function and perform in our local healthcare system with its unique set of rules and regulations (written or otherwise) and its unique patient and disease profiles, and angry doc supposes that's where the period of supervision and assessment come in.
What is important perhaps, even as we open our doors, is that we have a system to 'uninvite' the doctors who may for one reason or another be found not suitable for our healthcare system.
Labels: in the news