Into private medical education

to provide degree-awarding status to institutions. SAITM was given such status by two Gazettes in 2011 and 2013, under Section 70c of the Universities’ Act. There was also another Gazette issued in 2013 under Section 137 of the Universities’ Act which set out rules which are applicable for recognition of degree-awarding institutes. Under Rule 31 of this Gazette, there is reference to the requirement of a ‘compliance certificate’ from the relevant professional body, in the case of SAITM, it would be the SLMC. The SLMC, however, which functions under the Medical Ordinance has no mandate to issue such a ‘compliance certificate’. If a degree-awarding institute does not secure such a ‘compliance certificate’ (in the case of SAITM in medicine), how should such an institute be de-recognized. According to the court ruling, de-recognition should come from the Higher Education Ministry and that has also not been done in the case of SAITM despite the absence of a ‘compliance certificate’. Another factor is that the Higher Education Ministry is also waiting to grant five other private medical faculties permission to operate in Sri Lanka. If the authorities and policy-makers are keen to expand medical education into the private sector, well-thought of legislation needs to be implemented first. The foundation should be laid for proper education including essential clinical training, an academic pointed out.

While the ‘compliance certificate’ should be made mandatory under the Universities’ Act which comes under the Higher Education Ministry, the Medical Ordinance which is under the Health Ministry should be strengthened to ensure that such institutes ensure the Prescribed Minimum Standards for Medical Education which should have a strong legal backing, the academic pointed out.

The SLMC should be given