Adverse effects of recent NMC's Medical Institutions (Qualifications of Faculty) Regulations, 2025 NOTIFICATION.

 

The adverse effects and a comparison with  MEDICAL education @other nations.

---

The Peril of Quantity Over Quality in Indian Medical Education

The recent push by India's National Medical Commission (NMC) to rapidly increase the number of MBBS and postgraduate seats is a response to the country's dire doctor-patient ratio. However, the strategy to achieve this expansion—by relaxing the minimum standards for teaching faculty and infrastructure as indicated in recent notifications—is a perilous and counterproductive move. By lowering the requirements for faculty experience and permitting smaller, less-equipped colleges, the policy prioritizes quantity at the direct expense of quality. This approach risks creating a generation of medical graduates who are certified but not competent. An education system built on diluted standards will inevitably produce doctors with inadequate clinical exposure, weak diagnostic skills, and a poor understanding of evidence-based practice, ultimately jeopardizing patient safety and eroding public trust in the medical profession.

The Immediate Consequences: Dilution of Skills and Devaluation of the Degree

The adverse effects of relaxing these foundational norms are immediate and severe. When regulations are loosened to allow faculty with less experience or from allied specialities to teach core subjects, students are deprived of deep, expert-led mentorship. Similarly, reduced infrastructure requirements mean overcrowded lecture halls, under-equipped laboratories, and, most critically, affiliated hospitals with an insufficient number of beds and patient variety. This leads to a dangerously low student-to-patient ratio, where aspiring doctors get minimal hands-on training. The result is a medical graduate who may have passed examinations but lacks the practical acumen to handle complex medical emergencies. Over time, this systemic dilution will devalue the Indian MBBS and MD degrees, creating a two-tiered system where graduates from older, more established institutions are seen as vastly superior to those from newer, "compromised" colleges, making the degree a less reliable indicator of skill.

A Stark Contrast: The Uncompromising Standards of the USA and EU

In developed nations like the United States and the countries of the European Union, the approach to medical education is fundamentally different. Their systems are built on a foundation of rigorous, non-negotiable standards enforced by powerful accreditation bodies like the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) in the US and equivalent national authorities in the EU. These bodies mandate stringent criteria for faculty qualifications, requiring extensive clinical and research experience, and enforce high standards for infrastructure, including state-of-the-art labs and large, diverse teaching hospitals. The number of medical seats is deliberately limited to ensure that every student receives intensive, high-quality training. While this model leads to a longer and more expensive path to becoming a doctor, it guarantees a high baseline of competence and ensures that medical professionals are trusted globally. The core philosophy is that protecting patient health requires an uncompromising commitment to educational quality, even if it means slower growth in the number of practitioners.

The China Model: A Cautionary Tale and a Potential Roadmap

China offers a more direct and cautionary comparison for India. Faced with a similar need to rapidly expand its healthcare workforce, China also underwent a massive increase in medical schools in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, often with inconsistent quality. However, upon recognizing the long-term dangers of this approach, the Chinese government initiated a major course correction. It began a process of standardization and quality improvement, closing down substandard schools, implementing a rigorous national licensing examination, and investing heavily in upgrading the infrastructure and faculty of its leading medical universities. China’s journey demonstrates that while rapid expansion is tempting, it inevitably leads to a quality crisis that requires immense effort and investment to fix. India, by relaxing its standards from the outset, is arguably starting on the wrong foot, ignoring the critical lesson that a robust healthcare system cannot be built on a weak educational foundation. The sustainable path lies not in lowering the bar, but in investing strategically to help more institutions meet a high, uncompromised standard.