I usually don’t
get perturbed by PT syllabus- what is changed and what is not etc. I know from
many years of teaching nothing changes in the syllabus – from my observation in
the TN MGR University. As time goes by I
understood everything remains the same. A classical example is splitting the exercise
therapy syllabus into two into 2 papers but having the same content from that
horrible book- Dena Gardeners exercise therapy – keeping PT in the 1980s. And
this is still in the syllabus in 2015 but we have 2 papers in exercise therapy.
The other
day I saw the new and improved syllabus put forth by the ministry of health. I
am not going into the finer details of it as I said earlier nothing is going to
change. However, I am going to raise a single issue in the syllabus (proposed)
that is inclusion of 2 products as part of the curriculum.
A medical
product is usually a drug which can help in treating a disease. The drugs are developed by a complex process
and usually end with someone patenting it and selling it to us. They also have
a monopoly for sometime in not allowing others to use the formula. As time goes by generic variation are done and
usually sold in a much cheaper rate. In physiotherapy medical products traditionally
was instruments which are extensively used ranging from SWD to the modern
lasers. However, along came some PTs who had an ingenious idea of how to treat
some neurological and painful conditions. They were pioneers in our field
starting from Knott and Voss to Mulligan. They also wanted other PTs to
practice their ideas and started teaching it to other leading to newer ideas
and discussions.
So, what
went wrong? Well PTs with these ideas started forming cults with themselves as leader
and adherent followers. Even at this point I am not unhappy even though I think
it just ruins science. Some of them started to sort of patenting their have
baked ideas and claiming others should not teach them. I am assuming the reasons
for it is predominantly fiscal and some amount of thinking others will corrupt their
idea- leading to lose of fidelity of the concept. Whatever, their thinking I don’t
give a rats a$$. They even send notice to people who teach that- I personally
know people who got it for teaching McKenzie treatment. The Mulligan cult is
famous for saying in the brochure itself no one can teach the holly shit they
have formulated. Well, I still think it is up to them to say it and protect
their product. These are not hard science, these are one persons teaching with
or without any facts and hence not a problem when all of us don’t know how to
do these techniques.
So pray you ask me, “What is your problem?” The problem is Mckenzie and Mulligans school
of crap is in the draft syllabus prepared by the ministry. How come a product
with poor science and which cannot be taught as claimed by product ceos is in
the syllabus. OK, even if you say the concept can be taught, the question still
remains why? This is like saying you can run the trailer but to see our movie
you have to pay us 20000 Rs. As most of you know I hate NDT because they are
just lazy, parasites who take the work of others and sell it, but at least they
don’t ask other not to teach their useless product. To have in the syllabus –
Electrocare IFT rather than IFT is just plain wrong. Likewise, a product with
poor science and which cannot be taught by others other than by authorized by
the CEOs is just not done in Universities. Already we are selling nonsense like
Dry needling to K-tape without any shame to naïve therapist outside the preview
of the educational system- but universities should not be helping fat cats sell
their crap.
Let universities be where we learn science.
Let universities be where we learn science.