Committees are the fastest growing things in health care — teamwork, collaboration, consultation, liaison, planning, strategy, development, review are just some of the buzzwords used to justify downing tools and having a yak.
We can’t just blame government for this — have a look at how many committees the AMA has created.
Many committees are very influential. A number have remuneration and benefits attached, not to mention the time off work. They can also offer the natural companion of power — prestige.
The appointments to these committees are often driven by politics, connections and geography rather than by merit.
Some are even implementing gag clauses on doctors and even medical students. If someone is subject to a gag clause it should be declared as a conflict of interest.
As a profession we need to be asking about who decides appointments, how they are decided and whether members of committees are nominees or representatives. The latter have to tow a line, the former can be independent.
Power can manifest as workforce manipulation, even without monetary gain. Examples of this are the colleges, universities, regional training providers (RTPs) and hospital networks.
How many times have we seen the students or the registrars of the professor given the best jobs? How often do the supervisors on the boards of colleges and RTPs get the best registrars while others have to make do with the lower achieving ones or none at all?
Can doing a PhD under a certain boss somehow lead to a prime hospital appointment regardless of the academic merits of the thesis? Splashing the name of the boss on a few publications — with his/her minimal input — is a way to seal the deal.
There is certainly a culture of “doing one’s time” or “being seen” that prevails within our profession. When such candidates are given jobs over those with more merit, you cannot but help conclude that major conflicts of interest are at play.
http://www.mjainsight.com.au/view?post=aniello-iannuzzi-conflict-of-power&post_id=8543&cat=comment
