IMA’s opposition to Ayurveda docs doing surgeries is a hypocrisy, says Vaid Deopujari

• CCIM Chairman says Ayush doctors man 95% of ICUs
• Vaid Deopujari noted that those opposing Ayurvedic doctors conducting surgeries are hypocrites.
• The Ayurvedic doctor says that society will decide what is best for it.

THD NewsDesk, New Delhi: Countering IMA’s stance against the recent government notification allowing Ayurvedic doctors to do certain surgeries, Chairman of CCIM Vaid Deopujari said Ayush practitioners man 95% of ICUs. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) is a regulatory body for Ayurveda. Vaid Jayant Deopujari went on to say that “there is nothing new about ayurvedic doctors doing surgeries” and called IMA’s opposition hypocrisy.

Deopujari clarified that the notification facing heat from allopathic doctors is a clarification of the 2016 postgraduate regulation for the Indian system of medicine and most of the surgeries specified are already in practice.

Citing the example of the first Indian surgeon of ancient times, Sushruta, he said that since new technology is now available, Ayurvedic surgeons should be trained to practice it.

Speaking in support of training, Ayurvedic surgeons said,

“We are allowed to incorporate advances in modern technology and advances in science to supplement the Indian medicine system. This is mentioned in the new law passed, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020. It was also mentioned in the 1970 Act, showing that this vision was there right from the start.”

When questioned about the possibility of a complication occurring during the time of surgery, he said,

“There are SOPs for such situations across the world. They are not part of regulations but practice. Such complications could happen not just in an ayurvedic college but also in smaller hospitals or a small nursing home. Just as patients are shifted from those places to other hospitals, we also have provisions for immediately shifting the patient.”

Addressing how proper training of Ayush surgeons would be ensured, he denied reports of under-equipped practitioners being admitted to medical colleges. He quantified his claim by saying that last year 106 colleges were denied permission for an undergraduate course. He added,

“Every college has modern medical practitioners, including surgeons, pathologists, anaesthetists, ophthalmologists, radiologists, obstetricians, and gynaecologists, to train ayurvedic doctors.”

Moreover, he supported making the assessment reports of Ayush colleges available in the public domain by an amendment in the 1970 act that makes it confidential. 

Expressing his dissatisfaction with state governments permitting Ayush doctors to do allopathic practise where they are needed, he remarked,

“Health comes under the state government. Some state governments have permitted ayurvedic doctors to do allopathic practise because they could not get MBBS doctors to become medical officers. For instance, the Navi Mumbai corporation has 365 Ayush doctors on Covid duty and not a single MBBS doctor, and these Ayush doctors have been giving allopathic medicines. Who permitted that? It is state governments which are encroaching on the purity of Ayurveda because they cannot get enough MBBS people.”

He highlighted the hypocrisy of The National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH), saying that they will not recognize Ayush doctors working as surgeons; he noted that Ayush practitioners man 95% of ICUs. 

Pointing out the power of popular demand that shapes what service is offered in the market, he proudly said that his patients show more trust in Ayurvedic remedies than allopathic medicines. Although the government has decided not to let Ayush treat Covid patients, the number of shops selling ayurvedic preparations is steadily increasing. 

Therefore, society will be responsible for shaping government policies that deal with Ayurvedic doctors. 

Source: TOI