<p>Doing business in India might have become <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/10/31/india-jumps-doing-business-rankings-with-sustained-reform-focus">easier</a>, however, the practice of medicine is set to become a whole lot more difficult in the state of Karnataka. The proposed Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Bill, 2017 (Bill) has caused much uproar in the past few months and rightly so. The <a href="http://www.kla.kar.nic.in/assembly/bills/bill14140_06_2017.pdf">Bill</a> not only fails to achieve its intended goals but also creates new problems.</p>

<p>There are a few positive aspects of the Bill like acceptance of online applications for the registration of private medical establishments and requiring that the final bills do not exceed the quoted estimates.</p>

<p><strong>Charges to be fixed by the State</strong></p>

<p>What is problematic, however, is that the medical establishment is not at liberty to set its own prices for medical treatment. Instead, the amendments proposed would allow the government to fix charges for medical services provided by private medical establishments. This is an extraordinary measure which would amount to excessive government intervention and also set a dangerous precedent.</p>

<p>Bangalore is one of the top destinations for medical tourism in India because of the quality healthcare available. Government intervention in pricing is bound to bring down the quality as private medical establishments, like any other private service providers or businesses are for-profit establishments.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It is high time that the government focuses on rooting out corruption in public healthcare establishments which is rampant all over India.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It is high time that the government focuses on rooting out corruption in public healthcare establishments which is rampant all over India.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>If the ultimate aim is to provide quality healthcare at affordable costs to citizens, then the focus of reforms should be on government medical hospitals which have the responsibility of providing healthcare to all citizens. On the contrary, the government has rejected the Justice Vikramjit Sen committee&rsquo;s recommendation that the new rules should apply to both government and private medical establishments. It is high time that the government focuses on rooting out corruption in public healthcare establishments which is rampant all over India.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Redressal forum</strong></p>

<p>If the aim is to protect citizens from malpractice, both civil and criminal remedies already exist. Instead of improving awareness regarding these existing remedies, the government, through the Bill creates a new redressal forum known as the District or Metropolitan Grievance Redressal Committee which yields both investigative and quasi-judicial powers. Creating such a forum, despite the existence of other forums including consumer forums is inefficient.</p>

<p>Besides, cases regarding medical practice require special expertise and any judicial or quasi-judicial body would require time to hone its experience in the area.&nbsp;Interestingly, the composition of this forum consists of the CEO of the Zila Panchayat, superintendent of police of the district, a representative of a private medical establishment in the district, the district surgeon, public prosecutor and &lsquo;women representatives&rsquo; nominated by the government.</p>

<p>While a member with judicial experience is conspicuously absent from the members listed, it is even more curious that for some members of the committee the only qualification required is being women.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Doctors&rsquo; strike</strong></p>

<p>Although the Indian Medical Association of Karnataka is right to oppose the Bill before it is enacted, it should caution against calling for strikes and shutdown of all private medical establishments since ultimately patients would suffer the consequences.</p>


Proposed Karnataka healthcare reforms not only fails to achieve its intended goals but also creates new problems.

Doing business in India might have become easier, however, the practice of medicine is set to become a whole lot more difficult in the state of Karnataka. The proposed Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Bill, 2017 (Bill) has caused much uproar in the past few months and rightly so. The Bill not only fails to achieve its intended goals but also creates new problems. There are a few positive aspects of the Bill like acceptance of online applications for the registration of private medical establishments and requiring that the final bills do not exceed the quoted estimates. Charges to be fixed by the State What is problematic, however, is that the medical establishment is not at liberty to set its own prices for medical treatment. Instead, the amendments proposed would allow the government to fix charges for medical services provided by private medical establishments. This is an extraordinary measure which would amount to excessive government intervention and also set a dangerous precedent. Bangalore is one of the top destinations for medical tourism in India because of the quality healthcare available. Government intervention in pricing is bound to bring down the quality as private medical establishments, like any other private service providers or businesses are for-profit establishments. It is high time that the government focuses on rooting out corruption in public healthcare establishments which is rampant all over India. × If the ultimate aim is to provide quality healthcare at affordable costs to citizens, then the focus of reforms should be on government medical hospitals which have the responsibility of providing healthcare to all citizens. On the contrary, the government has rejected the Justice Vikramjit Sen committee’s recommendation that the new rules should apply to both government and private medical establishments. It is high time that the government focuses on rooting out corruption in public healthcare establishments which is rampant all over India. Redressal forum If the aim is to protect citizens from malpractice, both civil and criminal remedies already exist. Instead of improving awareness regarding these existing remedies, the government, through the Bill creates a new redressal forum known as the District or Metropolitan Grievance Redressal Committee which yields both investigative and quasi-judicial powers. Creating such a forum, despite the existence of other forums including consumer forums is inefficient. Besides, cases regarding medical practice require special expertise and any judicial or quasi-judicial body would require time to hone its experience in the area. Interestingly, the composition of this forum consists of the CEO of the Zila Panchayat, superintendent of police of the district, a representative of a private medical establishment in the district, the district surgeon, public prosecutor and ‘women representatives’ nominated by the government. While a member with judicial experience is conspicuously absent from the members listed, it is even more curious that for some members of the committee the only qualification required is being women. Doctors’ strike Although the Indian Medical Association of Karnataka is right to oppose the Bill before it is enacted, it should caution against calling for strikes and shutdown of all private medical establishments since ultimately patients would suffer the consequences.

Should govt fix prices of medical services in private clinics?

<p>Google&rsquo;s recent <a href="https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/16110696/firing-google-ceo-employee-penned-controversial-memo-on-women-has-violated-its-code-of-conduct">sacking</a> of James Damore for circulating a <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf">memo</a> will do the tech giant more harm than good. Not only has the memo been incorrectly dubbed &ldquo;anti-diversity&rdquo;, but a majority of Google employees surveyed in a recent poll <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/many-google-employees-dont-think-james-damore-should-have-been-fired-2017-8?r=US&amp;IR=T">disagreed</a> with the decision to fire Damore.</p>

<p>A more productive response to the memo would have been to setup an official channel for employees to air these kinds of issues. This way employees feel their views are heard and the company can take into account different points of view while formulating policy.</p>

<p>Google&rsquo;s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, <a href="https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/">wrote</a> to all Google employees saying that Damore&rsquo;s memo had crossed the line by &ldquo;advancing harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace&rdquo;. It might have been more advantageous to have a full and frank discussion of Google&rsquo;s diversity policies and what they are intended to achieve.</p>

<p><strong>Is it too dangerous to talk about diversity?</strong></p>

<p>Although painted as &ldquo;<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/06/technology/culture/google-diversity/index.html">anti-diversity</a>&rdquo;, the memo itself raises issues of the alienation of conservative views at Google and the need to be able to discuss diversity more openly. In other words, diversity shouldn&rsquo;t be a concept that people are scared to discuss openly for fear of being vilified or shamed.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Damore&rsquo;s memo suggests that those with differing views on diversity are dismissed and vilified.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Damore?s memo suggests that those with differing views on diversity are dismissed and vilified." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf">Damore&rsquo;s memo</a> suggests that those with differing views on diversity are dismissed and vilified. The response to his memo seems to prove his point. This might in fact be the heart of the problem - fear of saying something politically incorrect might in fact be holding people back from understanding the need for diversity measures.</p>

<p>One <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2340/">study</a> found that American corporate directors thought board diversity (in racial, ethnic and gender terms) was an important goal worth pursuing. But they seemed unable to substantiate this opinion with examples of how board diversity might help the company. The authors of the study concluded that diversity seemed to be a &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo; subject to talk about.</p>

<p>Shutting down differing views on the matter is antithetical to the idea of diversity. &ldquo;Inner diversity&rdquo;, meaning diversity of viewpoints and opinions, is as important as &ldquo;outer diversity&rdquo;, in terms of gender and ethnicity etc.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>A Canadian report on women on company boards found that boards with more women surpass all male boards in their attention to audit and risk oversight and control.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=A Canadian report on women on company boards found that boards with more women surpass all male boards in their attention to audit and risk oversight and control. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>A Canadian report on women on company boards <a href="http://utsc.utoronto.ca/%7Ephanira/WebResearchMethods/women-bod&amp;fp-conference%20board.pdf">found</a> that boards with more women surpass all male boards in their attention to audit and risk oversight and control. It also highlights that outer diversity (such as having more women on the board) is a proxy for inner diversity - it is a sign of different &ldquo;gifts, skills, experiences, and perspectives&rdquo;. If a company focuses singularly on outer diversity while discouraging diverse viewpoints it won&rsquo;t realise the real benefits of diversity in the first place.</p>

<p><strong>Rationales for diversity</strong></p>

<p>The rationale for measures promoting diversity is twofold. Women and minority groups have to overcome many barriers including selection bias while being recruited. And diversity, particularly in problem-solving groups, is <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-racism-and-a-lack-of-diversity-can-harm-productivity-in-our-workplaces-73119">ultimately good for business</a>.</p>

<p>Diversity measures seek to reduce (if not eliminate) <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/">biases</a> by expanding or diversifying the pool of candidates being considered for each position. For example, programs where female candidates are given mentors opens up new opportunities.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Recent neuroscience research shows there is not enough evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in the male and female brain.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Recent neuroscience research shows there is not enough evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in the male and female brain." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf">Damore&rsquo;s memo</a> argues the biological differences between men and women might be one of the reasons for the low number of women in the tech industry. However, <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&amp;context=learning_processes">recent neuroscience research</a> shows there is not enough evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in the male and female brain. So while Damore&rsquo;s view is not unequivocal, this perception could impede the effectiveness of diversity measures.</p>

<p>Other <a href="http://www.aei.org/publication/why-cant-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man-3/">research</a> shows that more men than women study computer science, engineering, physics and mathematics in the US. This could account for some of the gender disparity in tech companies. However, this is not true in all countries.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Women make up nearly half of computer science and computer engineering students in India.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Women make up nearly half of computer science and computer engineering students in India." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>For instance, women make up <a href="https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femininity-in-computer-science-in-india/abstract">nearly half</a> of computer science and computer engineering students in India. It might be interesting to study what factors deter women in the US from studying these subjects.</p>

<p>But in order to address these issues it is necessary to be able to discuss them, and then assess what a diversity policy is intended to fix. To that end, companies must create forums and events to discuss the rationales for diversity policies and also allow employees to voice their views in this regard.</p>

<p><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82318/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />A starting point could be to have employees fill out anonymous surveys to gauge perception of diversity policies. Based on this, appropriate discussions can be encouraged. Companies could also consider making the rationale for the diversity policy available along with the policy itself. This process will result in more informed policy choices and perhaps a more inclusive work culture.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-memo-to-google-firing-employees-with-conservative-views-is-anti-diversity-82318">original article</a>.</p>


Damore?s memo argues the biological differences between men and women might be one of the reasons for the low number of women in the tech industry.

Google’s recent sacking of James Damore for circulating a memo will do the tech giant more harm than good. Not only has the memo been incorrectly dubbed “anti-diversity”, but a majority of Google employees surveyed in a recent poll disagreed with the decision to fire Damore. A more productive response to the memo would have been to setup an official channel for employees to air these kinds of issues. This way employees feel their views are heard and the company can take into account different points of view while formulating policy. Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, wrote to all Google employees saying that Damore’s memo had crossed the line by “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace”. It might have been more advantageous to have a full and frank discussion of Google’s diversity policies and what they are intended to achieve. Is it too dangerous to talk about diversity? Although painted as “anti-diversity”, the memo itself raises issues of the alienation of conservative views at Google and the need to be able to discuss diversity more openly. In other words, diversity shouldn’t be a concept that people are scared to discuss openly for fear of being vilified or shamed. Damore’s memo suggests that those with differing views on diversity are dismissed and vilified. × Damore’s memo suggests that those with differing views on diversity are dismissed and vilified. The response to his memo seems to prove his point. This might in fact be the heart of the problem - fear of saying something politically incorrect might in fact be holding people back from understanding the need for diversity measures. One study found that American corporate directors thought board diversity (in racial, ethnic and gender terms) was an important goal worth pursuing. But they seemed unable to substantiate this opinion with examples of how board diversity might help the company. The authors of the study concluded that diversity seemed to be a “dangerous” subject to talk about. Shutting down differing views on the matter is antithetical to the idea of diversity. “Inner diversity”, meaning diversity of viewpoints and opinions, is as important as “outer diversity”, in terms of gender and ethnicity etc. A Canadian report on women on company boards found that boards with more women surpass all male boards in their attention to audit and risk oversight and control. × A Canadian report on women on company boards found that boards with more women surpass all male boards in their attention to audit and risk oversight and control. It also highlights that outer diversity (such as having more women on the board) is a proxy for inner diversity - it is a sign of different “gifts, skills, experiences, and perspectives”. If a company focuses singularly on outer diversity while discouraging diverse viewpoints it won’t realise the real benefits of diversity in the first place. Rationales for diversity The rationale for measures promoting diversity is twofold. Women and minority groups have to overcome many barriers including selection bias while being recruited. And diversity, particularly in problem-solving groups, is ultimately good for business. Diversity measures seek to reduce (if not eliminate) biases by expanding or diversifying the pool of candidates being considered for each position. For example, programs where female candidates are given mentors opens up new opportunities. Recent neuroscience research shows there is not enough evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in the male and female brain. × Damore’s memo argues the biological differences between men and women might be one of the reasons for the low number of women in the tech industry. However, recent neuroscience research shows there is not enough evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in the male and female brain. So while Damore’s view is not unequivocal, this perception could impede the effectiveness of diversity measures. Other research shows that more men than women study computer science, engineering, physics and mathematics in the US. This could account for some of the gender disparity in tech companies. However, this is not true in all countries. Women make up nearly half of computer science and computer engineering students in India. × For instance, women make up nearly half of computer science and computer engineering students in India. It might be interesting to study what factors deter women in the US from studying these subjects. But in order to address these issues it is necessary to be able to discuss them, and then assess what a diversity policy is intended to fix. To that end, companies must create forums and events to discuss the rationales for diversity policies and also allow employees to voice their views in this regard. A starting point could be to have employees fill out anonymous surveys to gauge perception of diversity policies. Based on this, appropriate discussions can be encouraged. Companies could also consider making the rationale for the diversity policy available along with the policy itself. This process will result in more informed policy choices and perhaps a more inclusive work culture. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Firing workers with conservative views is anti-diversity, says majority of Google employees

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Akshaya Kamalnath

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.