Do you agree with the demand to enhance the superannuation age of government medical doctors in Nagaland? Why?

Some of those who voted YES had this to say: 

  • We've very limited seat for pursuing medical sciences and it takes more years to complete the courses. Also, technical exams are not conducted every year. With proposed medical Colleges coming up, we will also need more man power than ever. That's my view.
  • shortage of doctors
  • Because we need the services of skilled doctors for a longer period of time. Even other states of India felt the need and implemented.  Then, why not Nagaland? Our situation is even more in need of the increase in the Superannuation age.
  • Because we need to retain services of experienced doctors particularly specialists for a longer period to benefit poorer sections of society who form majority of patients in Government hospitals.
  • Because, except in Nagaland, all over the country, Government doctors retire between 62-70 years age.
  • We've very limited seat for pursuing medical sciences and it takes more years to complete the courses. Also, technical exams are not conducted every year. With proposed medical Colleges coming up, we will also need more man power than ever. That's my view.
  • It has become a necessary with the shortage f doctors as well as the need for more to open the medical colleges. And it has become the norm in most other states.
  • We will produce more doctors amongst our people in the future if there are enough doctors now to run the 2 upcoming medical colleges.
  • Because due to long period of study may serve only for 30 years or less, especially those with specialist or super specialist degrees.
  • YES because the long years services have made them experience in the field so, the demand to enhance the superannuation age of government medical doctors in Nagaland is a must.
  • If politicians have no age bar why not medical doctors whose service is the basic need of any society. Above all we don't have medical College and lack medical doctors.

Some of those who voted NO had this to say:  

  • Enhancing retirement age will not contribute to healthcare outcome as by that age they are in administrative work. Can enhance once our state starts a medical college.
  • There is no need for superannuation. Better to stick to the existing policy and give everyone a chance.
  • It is not. Why? Because following a certain number of years working at the hospital/district level, govt doctors land up at the directorate taking up mostly desk jobs. This is in itself implies that senior doctors at the directorate do not actually practice medicine in the strict sense of the term. Those who retire or superannuate are seniors in the hierarchical set up of the directorate paving the way for those at the mid and junior level to move up the rungs. It's the norm and this practice prevents senior doctors from actually practicing what they studied and trained to do. Given this practice, the question of shortage of practicing doctors does not arise. Increasing the retirement age would only give rise to more and more senior doctors lost in paperwork at the directorate.
  • If superannuation is given so many young doctors were remain unemployed for another five years whereas the old doctors most of whom r at present redundant will not bring any improvement or change in our health system for another five years, when they v failed to improve our health system in spite of being in service for so many years, what will five extra more years change. Moreover, if they really want to help the people as they claim. they can always retire and join NHM n give good service
  • We need to give younger generation and more technically upgraded personals to give thier service to the people.
  • Many qualified candidates are there.

Some of those who voted OTHERS had this to say: 0