The National Medical Commission (NMC) Bill, which had doctors and educationists take to roads against it, doesn’t include some of the key recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee that studied it.
The Bill’s Section 32 talks about the concept of community health providers (CHP), who would be given ‘limited license’ to practise at ‘primary and preventive level’. The IMA opposed this clause, saying it would “legalise quackery” as the Bill not only failed to define CHPs, but also did not detail as to how they would practise modern medicine.
This section was not a part of the version of the Bill submitted to the standing committee. Instead, it had a provision to allow Aysuh doctors to practise as modern medicine practitioners after undertaking a bridge course.
![Prof K Nageshwar: Why Doctors oppose NMC? [HD] (Video)](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ba9d209f7408d31c02bd9313ef807db249a6fcf24f993220eed41724683faf09?s=100&d=mm&r=g "Prof K Nageshwar: Why Doctors oppose NMC? [HD] (Video)"){kind=avatar}
About Gopi
Gopi Adusumilli is a Programmer. He is the editor of SocialNews.XYZ and President of AGK Fire Inc.
He enjoys designing websites, developing mobile applications and publishing news articles on current events from various authenticated news sources.
When it comes to writing he likes to write about current world politics and Indian Movies. His future plans include developing SocialNews.XYZ into a News website that has no bias or judgment towards any.
He can be reached at gopi@socialnews.xyz
![Prof K Nageshwar: Why Doctors oppose NMC? [HD] (Video)](https://i0.wp.com/www.socialnews.xyz/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/08/maxresdefault-136.jpg?w=180&quality=80&zoom=1&ssl=1 "Prof K Nageshwar: Why Doctors oppose NMC? [HD] (Video)")
The National Medical Commission (NMC) Bill, which had doctors and educationists take to roads against it, doesn’t include some of the key recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee that studied it. The Bill’s Section 32 talks about the concept of community health providers (CHP), who would be given ‘limited license’ to practise at ‘primary and preventive level’. The IMA opposed this clause, saying it would “legalise quackery” as the Bill not only failed to define CHPs, but also did not detail as to how they would practise modern medicine. This section was not a part of the version of the Bill submitted to the standing committee. Instead, it had a provision to allow Aysuh doctors to practise as modern medicine practitioners after undertaking a bridge course.