The first two years of undergraduate teaching in Nepal involves basic concepts related to health and disease. How ethical is it not to train them equally in the area of basic sciences? Is there a need to harmonize or not?
The surgeon dentist , generalist professional with solid technical and scientific , humanistic and ethical training , geared to the promotion of health, with emphasis on prevention of prevalent oral diseases .
The dentist must act with concern as to promote the oral health of the population , although there is a context where preventive work , is still very evident the prevalence of dental caries and periodontal diseases -
The Medicine course in Brazil is full time , has a duration of six years , in order that the future physician is able to solve the health problems that most frequently affect the Brazilian population and be able to promote health , prevent and treat diseases patients within ethical and human values using the medical and scientific knowledge and skills acquired in the course , in the areas of Pediatrics , Obstetrics , Gynecology , Internal Medicine and Surgery and Preventive and Social Medicine .
From 2015 medical courses in public and private network in Brazil will have to increase the workload of 6 to 8 years duration
The medical school curriculum is more and more time learning and therefore believe that curricular differences will continue to exist
Thank you for the insight. I totally agree with you but I am more concerned for doctors and dentists of countries like mine. Here both courses are of five and a half years where the first two years of basic sciences including anatomy, physiology,pathology,forensic, biochemistry,pharmacology and microbiology are taught by same teachers with similar objectives..Our council allows dentists to get MD in basic sciences. So, why shouldn't the basic curriculum be same.After all, when their clinical postings begin they automatically move to their different ways.My concern is medical education along with being in accordance with international standards, should also be context specific to meet the health care demand of the population.
The decision on certain facts should be based on regional characteristics. According to your information, the time courses of equals and the curriculum is quite similar.
The common sense must always prevail and in this particular situation I believe that a review of the traditional system and following discussions and proposals should be done by assessing the pros and cons, then a new government decision could be adopted.
So far - you seem to limiting yourself to the disciplines of just medicine and dentistry. I think that a good model for all countries is 'health professions' undergraduate curricula (as well as post-graduate) - such as in many Faculties in the UK. All potential and actual registered health professionals working in healthcare settings need to know the essential and basic skills of health services governance i.e. quality care provision - such as good communication skills, evidence-based practice, public health. Skilled lecturers from a variety of different allied health professions can teach large cohorts of mixed discipline students. The generic principles are the same for all. It's a far more cost-effective and efficient curriculum model (and promotes collegiality, multi-disciplinary working, and shared outcomes) - than single discipline education. That tends, instead, to promote professional protectionism, discipline hierarchy, communication breakdowns, different healthcare agendas that do not serve the interests of clients well or promote quality care provision etc.
I agree with you Dean. The entry level criteria for undergraduates is similar so the basic concepts could be harmonized. As you said, along with being cost effective it will be a very effective model for developing countries like mine where there is scarcity of academicians. There would be no need for separate content and teaching methodologies and different evaluation systems. But as Nelson said common sense should prevail!!!
Curricula and course of the study depends on what is required in future for the doctor to handle the situation. The differences are accepted based on the relevance of the course material or curriculum because in many countries dental surgeons do not practice the medicine but they should be aware of the problems suffering by the patient. In some of the developing countries after graduation as Dental surgeon , they work as general duty officer. In this situation the differences do count in imparting knowledge about common health problems to them. In my opinion the curriculum established is correct but the policy of the respective Government is not correct in providing services to the community. Probably there is not proper coordination between the departments.
I would rather agree that both dental and medical students have the same basic courses. It will enhance interdesciplinarity which is very imortant for the future careers of both. Here in our University ( U of Gezira), most of the basic and system courses are conducted for both. It is solving the problem of staff shortage. One disadvantage is that the number of the students will be large which definitelyl affects the learning process. It may be a good idea to evaluate them separately making more relevant emphasis for each.
As mentioned above if we open the area to other health team we will find dietitians as a part of heath team. Dietitian/ Dietician is a part of health team they contact patients give them nutrition advice, prescribe diets for patients, in charge for hygienic kitchen produce meals etc. The issue here in developing countries dietitian do not have to do internship like the curricula in UK, Canada and USA, so there is no enough training, no licences to practice the job. These countries see dietitian as employee not a part of health team, also dietitian give advice to patients if they have not enough training may kill patients. In this situation dietitians have not the opportunity to give advice outside the square of hospitals. I see something wrong