This blog is in response to a public circular from the NDC
prohibiting any organization or institution from conducting fellowships,
training programmes or private certifications without its express endorsement.
This technically means that the statutory body appears to have wrongfully
arrogated to itself powers and responsibility for training that clearly falls
outside its mandate. The NDC (previously the DCI) has obviously misinterpreted
the imputed spirit behind the rules. It
is obviously not the custodian of all upskilling endeavours in the profession.
In one fell stroke it has disenfranchised the existing matrix that includes
recognized Universities, Registered Dental Associations and expert
professionals who have trained graduates and postgraduates in learning new
techniques, honing existing skills and updating current data.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the basic dental degree requires
registration by the NDC to practise dentistry, or any of its branches.
Similarly, all postgraduate courses leading to qualification as a teacher in a
dental institution must be University degrees from NDC recognized establishments.
However, the NDC has no mandate under any law to prevent a registered dentist
from teaching or training another duly registered dentist. Please read that
again. For the benefit of those unaware of the provisions, let me quote the
very rules used to wipe out training and skilling courses that benefitted
practising dentists and the public.
A careful reading of Section 10 suggests that the National
Dental Commission has appropriated for itself the right to determine how new
advances in the profession are taught or learnt. The subsequently quoted
Sections 24 through 50 are merely extensions of this premise. The words are
couched in ambiguity where the reference is obviously to undergraduate and
postgraduate training as qualifications to practise and register as a dentist. This
cannot be interpreted as a broad right to control learning and achievement of
excellence through means other than NDC recognized dental institutions.
Learning skills and enhancing knowledge is certainly not exclusively within the
purview of a regulator appointed for the purpose of practice licensing.
A registered BDS graduate can attain skills from a senior or
accomplished expert without making that process a qualification. Depending on
ambition and perseverance, formal or informal, the graduate can expand the
scope of practice through any available skill and knowledge enhancing programme.
The issue seems to be the financial implications of this
process. The decision to levy a fee (or not) is clearly between trainer and
learner. Insisting that this process be controlled by a Government statutory
body makes it vulnerable to the whims of an authority established to only regulate
registrable degrees and licensing processes.
The notification seems to suggest that knowledge and skill
should not progress beyond what was acquired at the time of qualification. This
is unreasonable in a profession which needs to keep pace with global excellence
and innovation. The notification should indeed be challenged before an
appropriate court of jurisdiction to ensure that registered professionals are
not shackled to a State body that already has enough on its plate.
My opinions are based on personal perspectives evolved
through a careful perusal of the circular and the quoted provisions alluded to
in the notification. I have no skin in the game. I don’t conduct courses or
certify attendance.
If the contents of this blog are being shared please do so
without any modification.
George Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment