London Health Administrators: Fill & Download for Free

By this question I can guess that you are an BDS intern. There is a lot of dilemma in choosing a career after BDS. There are various options available after BDS. Choosing a right career solely depends on your interests and inclination. Some options for “What after BDS”? are….Opening up a clinic/ Self employedMDS (9 diff branches, need to crack NEET)MBA (Health Care Management / Administration)Clinically Research (Medical/ Drug research / pharma company)MSc in Clinical Psycology (practice as psychologists/ psychotherapist)MPH/ MPA (masters in public health/ administration, jobs of Hospital Admins in hospitals)Govt services (state/ central run govt hospitals/ Civil hospital/ Health care centres)Full time / contractual Govt jobs / private owned companies as Dentist (e.g. SAIL, BHEL, etc vacancy & process of application advertised in newspapers)Working as an Dentist abroad the most lucrative being USA, Canada, Australia, London, New Zealand, Middle East etc. (different process for different countries, ORE, NBDE)Army Dental corps (after graduation selected directly as Captain/ Major (written & physical tests required)Territorial officer in Army / Navy/ Air Force (need to clear written & Physical tests)Joining Indian Railways as a Dentist (vacancy, criteria and process for applying advertised in various newspapers.For Govt jobs, the procedure is simple, any BDS graduate can apply, eligiblity criteria and requirements are published in newspapers.Candidates can send their bio-data along with attetsed copies of mark sheets (BDS), Attempt certificates, Internship completion certificates, 02 copies of recent passport size photograph to the address mentioned.For Govt. Jobs Candidates are selected based on Merit, Quota, recommendations, and other means (you know how it works in India) :)Hope this answers helps you in deciding your career. If you have further queries you can write to me.P.S: In choosing of a career please take great consideration of your inclinations. Wheather you are inclined towards academics or clinical work or research. To be an entrepreneur or to be a employee, to be a manager at any hospital, or to serve the country, or you just want to make good money. Stronger the inclination, narrowed are the options.

Doctors conferences are done with purpose of sharing the new knowledge in ever progressing medical knowledge, to discuss new problems like developing drug resistance, discuss problems related to doctors fraternity like rising violence against doctors, how to improve patient care, student participation is encouraged to give them exposure and increase their learning. Pharmaceutical companies sponsor these conferences to support all these activities with a motive to increase their sale. All this is ethical and legal and followed in all sectors not only in health. All this is aimed at progress of medical knowledge thus benefit to the patient. Now things are easy to understand if you imagine that all these activities be stopped. Doctors are not politicians they want latest scientific knowledge not votes. They will share knowledge and honour their best for overall progress of medical science. All this need money. In developed nations govt allocated enough funds to cover such activities but not so in India. Modi is a shrewed politician he know that there is a inherent anger in public to delivery of health services all over India. Now public see the doctor behind this bad health delivery. But they forget that to provide free medicine and good infrastructure is politicians 's and adminstrator's job. Doctors job is best possible patient care with available resources to the ever increasing population. Modi is taking advantage of this misinformed perception of public and posing to them as if he has taken revolutionary steps by moderating pricing of stents and medicines. But question is why he or previous government did it earlier. Price control and delivery of health infrastructure is always govt job not doctors. But taking political advantage of public anger against health services and thus doctors, he is shifting his own blame to doctors. Rather than doing this witch hunting his govt should take advice of doctors in framing proper treatment guidelines. If India can run a useless employment scheme like MNREGA, to provide free medicine to all poor is no problem. But they lack political vision. They are busy promoting unscientific treatment modalities like Ayurveda, gaumutra, etc which are of no use to anybody. If their AYUSH is so useful why common man has to rush to allopathy institution. Why no anger against AYUSH if they had been treating any patient. Had they been efficient people would have gone to them rather then going to allopathy institution and beating doctors. So govt had to make proper policies rather than d oing cheap vote politics likeModi did at London. This has negative ramifications, first hardworking honest allopathy doctor is demoralised, second gullible common man gets negative attitude towards allopathy and go to unscientific systems and die miserable premature death. His cheap statement about creamy layers of society also shows his misplaced priorities, his frustration riding out of his failure to deliver properly in last four years. He is the best political leader at present in India, his such statement is ill-advised. This also show that Indian health administrators are nonserious about providing better healthcare to Indians but has some prejudices against doctors. To mend corrupt doctors should be govt priority and they have to work hard to do this. But health secretary of every state is more interested in issuing medicine and equipment tenders to his relatives and friends and thus minting money and ill advising politicians, rather than working to make system corruption proof. Thus his sweeping statement is a cheap vote politics founded on unscrupulous babu's corrupt mind.

Depending on the rigor and manner with which such laws are enforced, mandating immunizations could indeed be quite effective in preventing deadly disease. Unfortunately, it could also boomerang, inadvertently stoking strong and abiding anti-vaccination sentiment among the population. If past is indeed prologue, the prevailing culture in a society thus greatly influences the consequences of mandating immunizations (vaccinations).As Rene Dubos noted in 1965 (below from 1, quoting from Dubos, René Jules. Man adapting, 1965, emphasis mine)."Social considerations, in fact, make it probably useless to discuss the theoretical flaws and technical difficulties of eradication programs, because more earthy factors will certainly bring them soon to a gentle and silent death. Certain unpleasant but universal human traits will put impassable stumbling blocks on the road to eradication. For example, it is easy to write laws for compulsory vaccination against smallpox, but in most parts of the world people would much rather buy the vaccination certificate than take the vaccine ; and they shall always find physicians willing to satisfy their request for a small fee ..."Public health administrators, like social planners, have to compromise with the limitations of human nature. For this reason, and many others, eradication programs will eventually become a curiosity item on library shelves, just as have all social utopias."Analysis of the history of smallpox eradication provides ample evidence for the excessive role culture plays in how laws mandating immunization are implemented and how they are perceived by the society at large.From around the 15th and 16th centuries until well into the 20th century, smallpox was a deadly scourge which roiled many societies through cyclical epidemics that used to leave hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands dead in each instance and leave behind as many or more scarred and disfigured.Societies in the post-Jenner era had the option to vaccinate, which seemed to work remarkably well. Only problem was that their citizenry wasn't lining up in droves to get vaccinated even as every ~5 year epidemic cycle of smallpox visited death and mayhem upon them. This led many countries to mandate smallpox vaccination (below from 1)“vaccination, usually of infants, was made legally compulsory in Bavaria (1807), Denmark (1810), Norway (1811), Bohemia and Russia (1812), Sweden (1816) and Hanover (1821). Great Britain and France were to follow much later, in 1853 and 1902 respectively. Of course, having a law on the statute books and enforcing it were two different matters, especially as the problem of the large-scale production and distribution of vaccine was not solved until the latter half of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the evidence for the efficacy of vaccination, provided by countries in which it was compulsory and in which the law was enforced, was compelling. Edwardes (1902) summarized much of this evidence in his excellent little monograph.”However, such laws turned out to not be cure-alls but rather of limited benefit. Indeed as noted by Frank Fenner, Donald Ainslie Henderson, Isao Arita, Zdenek Jezek, Ivan Danilovidh Ladnyi in their triumphant recounting of the history of the successful eradication of smallpox (below from 1, emphasis mine),“Legislation on smallpox and vaccination existed or was adopted in most countries, but in most instances it proved to be of little benefit other than as an official statement of policy. In the majority of countries, legislation was enacted which called for compulsory vaccination at or shortly after birth, periodic revaccination, and the mandatory isolation of patients; some countries prohibited variolation and required citizens to report cases of smallpox. On the few occasions when action was taken to enforce such laws, the results were poor and often counterproductive. In India, for example, attempts to levy fines on persons who refused to be vaccinated led to protracted proceedings in the courts without any apparent increase in compliance by the general public. The forcible isolation of patients in hospital often caused many families to hide infected household members and impeded effective containment measures.”An abundance of smallpox data thus reveals a wide range of consequences of compulsory smallpox vaccination laws.The US unintentionally revealed the benefit of compulsory smallpox vaccination since US states with such laws reduced their smallpox cases 17-fold between 1919 and 1928 compared to those that prohibited it.In countries such as Sweden and the German states, such laws helped to practically eliminate smallpox within their midst.In countries such as Great Britain, such laws provoked intense backlash that may have germinated the seeds of the anti-vaccination movement, which continues in some form or the other in many modern societies.In countries such as Egypt, toothless laws with weak enforcement hardly made a dent in smallpox cases.US States With Compulsory Vaccination Lowered Smallpox Cases 17-fold (1919-1928) Compared to Those That Prohibited It (below from 1)Smallpox Vaccination Itself Dramatically Reduced Deaths In Sweden; Compulsory Vaccination Didn't Entirely Eliminate It (below from 1)“The figures for Sweden, which has some of the earliest reliable statistics, are shown in Fig. 6.1. Vaccination began in Sweden late in 1801 and was made compulsory in 1816. From about 1802 onwards there was a dramatic change in the 18th century pattern of major epidemics (3000-7000 smallpox deaths per million population) every 5 years or so, against a background of high endemicity (600-800 smallpox deaths per million population). The epidemic waves subsided and from about 1810, as vaccination became more widespread, the figures fell to unprecedently low levels. Six years after the institution of compulsory vaccination the ratio of smallpox deaths per million population reached a single figure-over a hundredfold reduction from the previous endemic level. After that, in spite of the maintenance of a reasonably high level of infant vaccination, the death rate rose again and epidemics recurred, although at a tenth the amplitude and at longer intervals than in the 18th century.”From 1875 To 1897, Smallpox Cases In German States Of Prussia, Bavaria and Wurttemberg (Compulsory Vaccination) Reduced To Practically Zero Compared To Only <10-fold Reduction In Austria (No Compulsory Vaccination) (below from 1)“revaccination was introduced in Wurttemberg in 1829; other states, beginning in 1833, instituted the compulsory vaccination of military recruits. In the Prussian army, the number of deaths from smallpox, which had averaged 88 per year in 1831-1834, dropped to single figures and averaged less than 2 per year for the next 30 years... Germany took these lessons to heart and in 1874 promulgated a vaccination law requiring that every child should be vaccinated during the 2nd year of life and that every schoolchild should be revaccinated during the 12th year, unless an attack of smallpox, or a successful vaccination, had occurred within the previous 5 years. The results, when compared with the prevailing situation in Austria, in which general conditions were similar but revaccination had not been introduced, were dramatic (Table 6.4) and hardly require comment.”Compulsory Smallpox Vaccination Provoked Intense Anti-Vaccination Backlash In Great BritainBelow from 1 quoting from MacLeod, Roy M. "Law, medicine and public opinion: the resistance to compulsory health legislation 1870-1907." Public Law (1967): 107-28.,“Resistance to Compulsory Vaccination in Great Britain"The Vaccination Acts of 1840, 1841 and 1853 . . . made [vaccination] successively universal, free, non-pauperising and, finally, compulsory. The Acts of 1861,1867 and 1871 made vaccination enforceable by the appointment of Vaccination Officers, and finally compelled enforcement by making such appointments mandatory . . . the Act of 1867 permitted parents to be fined repeatedly until the child was vaccinated.. . the Act of 1871 . . . made negligent parents liable both for non compliance with the Act and for disobedience of a court order. In default of fines and costs, parents were sometimes committed to gaol and household goods were distrained for sale. As incidents of bona tide opposition to vaccination arose, the severity with which the law was enforced and the weight it laid upon the poorer classes attracted more attention. Gradually, individuals found organised means of expressing their discontent. Such opposition merged with the rising tide of working-class opinion and with the efforts of radical reformers who saw in the vaccination question the embodiment of impersonal and uncompromising governmental intervention in the daily life of the individual..."The [subsequent] development of the antivaccinationist movement can be seen in five distinct phases. First, sporadic Radical outbursts in London and the North led during the seventies to the formation of the Society for the Suppression of Compulsory Vaccination in London . . . The second phase of activity, under the Cheltenham National Anti- Compulsory Vaccination League, extended the movement to the rural population and the agricultural middle classes. When League intrapolitics and its limited programme failed to make an impact on national opinion, a more extensive campaign was begun. This came about in the third phase, with the establishment of a new London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination. The highly co-ordinated pressure group tactics of this Society unified support and helped to secure Government inquiry into the vaccination question. The actions of this group in the period 1880-89 prepared the ground for the fourth phase which emerged in the nineties, when the London Society, using the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination as a manifesto, amalgamated antivaccinationists into a new National Anti-Vaccination League, and pressed for remedial legislation. The fifth phase, beginning in reaction to administration abuse of the conscientious objection provision of the 1898 Act, receded with the League's decline after 1907, when its final objectives were essentiallv achieved.”Compulsory Smallpox Vaccination In Egypt Made A Dent In Case & Death #s Only When Rigorously Enforced (below from 1)Bibliography1. Fenner, Frank, et al. Smallpox and its eradication. Vol. 6. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1988. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2491071/pdf/bullwho000Thanks for the R2A, Jeffrey Wint.