Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
Angry+Bitter+Unmatched

Unmathched Human Rights Complaint

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, goleafsgochris said:

Here is what I would do in OPs (understandably terrible) position.  I would find a remote family med program that has trouble filling its Carms spots.  Like really remote--northern Saskatchewan or some equivalent to that.  Set up a meeting with the program director and go there.  Explain the situation in detail--hated the original program you were in, dropped out, have had trouble matching since, but now are committed to and passionate about family medicine and would be happy to train in a rural setting.  Ask what you can do to maximize your chances of getting into THAT program next year.  Offer to volunteer, do research, shadow, whatever.  I can see a strategy like this potentially drastically increasing the chances for next year.  And hell, you really just need to get into ANY program, and the nightmarish situation resolves itself.

Note that this is more a thought experiment and isn't meant to demean OP, maybe you intend to or have tried this.

Or write the USMLEs. Anyone who doesn't match twice, should be in that process of taking them. You can pick up a FM residency with no issues somewhere in the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your family willing to support you financially? Doing USMLEs might be really tough on welfare. Expect ~$ 5000 to do Step 1, step 2cs, step ck. ~3000-7000 CADs if you going to apply broadly to most IMG friendly FM programs and at least another couple grand depending on how many interviews and hotels you have to fly to :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Histolytica said:

Maybe you're just too angry+bitter and nobody wants to work with you.  I have no idea who you are so this may or may not be true.  Just because somebody gets in to med school doesn't necessarily mean they are entitled to work with patients.

I hope you're able to find a resolution.

This is the kind of quote that makes me wish there is a dislike button. You have #1 contributed nothing to the conversation and #2 put down some random stranger who is going through a difficult time. From your posting history you seem to be interested in surgery as well, so maybe one day you might be in the same shoes. Why bother writing it at all?

As a recently unmatched student I too found myself angry+bitter for quite some time after reading Robert Chu's letters to the minister. I feel like all the medical schools were trying to make his death a mental health issue when there is a looming employment disaster they should have addressed with the press coverage.

To OP, I am in the opinion that media would be better than human rights complaint, and rmorelan made really good points in the previous post iirc. As the child of an immigrant, I saw my highly educated parent getting rejected at costco job fairs. It really sucks, but like everything, this will pass too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crysally said:

This is the kind of quote that makes me wish there is a dislike button. You have #1 contributed nothing to the conversation and #2 put down some random stranger who is going through a difficult time. From your posting history you seem to be interested in surgery as well, so maybe one day you might be in the same shoes. Why bother writing it at all?

As a recently unmatched student I too found myself angry+bitter for quite some time after reading Robert Chu's letters to the minister. I feel like all the medical schools were trying to make his death a mental health issue when there is a looming employment disaster they should have addressed with the press coverage.

To OP, I am in the opinion that media would be better than human rights complaint, and rmorelan made really good points in the previous post iirc. As the child of an immigrant, I saw my highly educated parent getting rejected at costco job fairs. It really sucks, but like everything, this will pass too.

The media probably would get more results (although probably not for him), but as mentioned by I can't remember who in this thread, OP is probably the wrong figurehead for this fight. While his case sure is problematic and not something that should happen, he did match to a residency in the past and decided to leave it (probably understanding what the consequences would be, ie: being stuck in 2nd round).

Basically, current laws make it so that the government has no obligation to offer post-graduate training while CaRMS is a binding contract where a matched resident has to go to the program he is matched to. In this situation, the government did not fail to fulfill any obligation it had whereas OP did.

Any digging around that will be inevitable if he goes public will uncover this and make it very hard to win the public opinion which is crucial if going public is to achieve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on your education background. From my understanding you are a CMG who did a residency in Canada? On a side note, you have people on your side, it might not be the banks or schools, but friends and family. Stay strong man.

 

Edit: I am very glad that upper "classmen" (best way I can put in words those down the line of a long journey) are coming forth with these problems. It's something students, graduates should consider when pursuing medical education now a days. Whatever the result, it's not in vain in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, crysally said:

This is the kind of quote that makes me wish there is a dislike button. You have #1 contributed nothing to the conversation and #2 put down some random stranger who is going through a difficult time. From your posting history you seem to be interested in surgery as well, so maybe one day you might be in the same shoes. Why bother writing it at all?

As a recently unmatched student I too found myself angry+bitter for quite some time after reading Robert Chu's letters to the minister. I feel like all the medical schools were trying to make his death a mental health issue when there is a looming employment disaster they should have addressed with the press coverage.

To OP, I am in the opinion that media would be better than human rights complaint, and rmorelan made really good points in the previous post iirc. As the child of an immigrant, I saw my highly educated parent getting rejected at costco job fairs. It really sucks, but like everything, this will pass too.

I am no where in the same shoes as you guys but this line of thinking helps a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, goleafsgochris said:

Here is what I would do in OPs (understandably terrible) position.  I would find a remote family med program that has trouble filling its Carms spots.  Like really remote--northern Saskatchewan or some equivalent to that.  Set up a meeting with the program director and go there.  Explain the situation in detail--hated the original program you were in, dropped out, have had trouble matching since, but now are committed to and passionate about family medicine and would be happy to train in a rural setting.  Ask what you can do to maximize your chances of getting into THAT program next year.  Offer to volunteer, do research, shadow, whatever.  I can see a strategy like this potentially drastically increasing the chances for next year.  And hell, you really just need to get into ANY program, and the nightmarish situation resolves itself.

Note that this is more a thought experiment and isn't meant to demean OP, maybe you intend to or have tried this.

That’s a great plan. Keep in mind though that basically the only family med programs that consistently have difficulty filling spots these days are all French Quebec family residencies. There’s always family spots left over, but among English programs, you can’t reliably say which ones. It’s gotten that bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, crysally said:

This is the kind of quote that makes me wish there is a dislike button. You have #1 contributed nothing to the conversation and #2 put down some random stranger who is going through a difficult time. From your posting history you seem to be interested in surgery as well, so maybe one day you might be in the same shoes. Why bother writing it at all?

As a recently unmatched student I too found myself angry+bitter for quite some time after reading Robert Chu's letters to the minister. I feel like all the medical schools were trying to make his death a mental health issue when there is a looming employment disaster they should have addressed with the press coverage.

To OP, I am in the opinion that media would be better than human rights complaint, and rmorelan made really good points in the previous post iirc. As the child of an immigrant, I saw my highly educated parent getting rejected at costco job fairs. It really sucks, but like everything, this will pass too.

 

I genuinely feel bad for everybody that doesn't match.  It is a very difficult thing.  From my observation, the vast majority who don't match should have and will make fine doctors when it's sorted out.  I'm sorry this has hit a raw nerve for you.

However, I stand by my assertion that not everybody is entitled to be a practicing physician.  Surely you will agree that some people in med school aren't right for it.  Even if this number is incredibly small, I'm sure it applies to somebody.  Does it apply to the OP?  I don't know.  As I said previously I don't know him or his circumstances. The tone of the post seemed pretty angry.  He blamed the system but I didn't see any sign of accountability for his own actions (apparently he left a residency position already?).

It's very difficult to pass judgment based on limited information.  This is true if you agree or disagree with the OP sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue likely needs a legislative solution. And it needs to be re-branded as a public interest issue. As in: spending taxpayer dollars to put someone through medical school, but not through residency, is simply an atrocious waste of public resources. You could also attack the OMA for not doing anything about this (they don't do anything of significance for any medical trainee issues, period, and frankly I'm sick of it).

But, if you did want to litigate this, I think your best bet would be to do a Class Action for Breach of Contract. The Class would consist of all unmatched CMG applicants, perhaps going back all the way since the rotating internship was dissolved. The damages would be all the tuition and ancillary fees paid through medical school. You would argue that when you pay the school your tuition fee, there is an implied contract not only that you will be granted an MD degree (provided that you meet minimum academic standards, complete all requirements, and follow all rules of conduct), but also that you will be able to actually practice as a physician (which requires you to be able to match to a residency position).

I'm not entirely sure who the defendant would be. The medical schools themselves? The AFMC? The CFPC for getting rid of the rotating internship? You may be able to add CaRMS as a defendant, with their exorbitant application fees as damages. I think you would want to file in federal court, but I don't know if that's possible. The federal government I think would be an intervener, but not a direct respondent. I'm not sure, it's a bit complicated.

If there is enough interest in a class action like this, let me know. I may discuss with a couple lawyers that haven't disappointed me yet, and see if there is a viable cause of action here.

Obligatory disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER and could be talking completely out of my ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, ana_safavi said:

But, if you did want to litigate this, I think your best bet would be to do a Class Action for Breach of Contract. The Class would consist of all unmatched CMG applicants, perhaps going back all the way since the rotating internship was dissolved. The damages would be all the tuition and ancillary fees paid through medical school. You would argue that when you pay the school your tuition fee, there is an implied contract not only that you will be granted an MD degree (provided that you meet minimum academic standards, complete all requirements, and follow all rules of conduct), but also that you will be able to actually practice as a physician (which requires you to be able to match to a residency position).

I don't think this is at all reasonable. Paying tuition does not in any way amount to an implied contract, the result of which is a degree. This applies to any educational program, except perhaps online (fake) degree mills. I certainly agree that medical education must be treated as a "continuum", such that the decrease in spots with concomitant increase in med school spaces has created an untenable situation. This is a result of government policymaking, but it would be very difficult to show the breach of any contract, implied or otherwise. 

5 hours ago, ana_safavi said:

I'm not entirely sure who the defendant would be. The medical schools themselves? The AFMC? The CFPC for getting rid of the rotating internship? You may be able to add CaRMS as a defendant, with their exorbitant application fees as damages. I think you would want to file in federal court, but I don't know if that's possible. The federal government I think would be an intervener, but not a direct respondent. I'm not sure, it's a bit complicated.

The medical schools do not determine the number of residency positions; this is a function of provincial government funding mediated through different postgrad departments and different programs. As for "application fees", I paid over $2k to the RC yesterday for my subspecialty exam. That's less than half the cost of the previous exam, but what can you do? The feds are not involved in the delivery* of health care much less medical education so I don't know why they would be involved. 

(*Except for whatever FNIHB is called these days and military types.)

5 hours ago, ana_safavi said:

If there is enough interest in a class action like this, let me know. I may discuss with a couple lawyers that haven't disappointed me yet, and see if there is a viable cause of action here.

Aren't you in residency? (acknowledging the current controversies nonetheless)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with A-Stark on this one. No career guarantees a job after getting a degree. 
It might rub the public the wrong way as the reasoning comes off as entitled. I'm interested in what the lawyers have to say.
Also, it always amazes me how they increased medical school admission but cut back on residency spots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PetiteAgour said:

I have to agree with A-Stark on this one. No career guarantees a job after getting a degree. 
It might rub the public the wrong way as the reasoning comes off as entitled. I'm interested in what the lawyers have to say.
Also, it always amazes me how they increased medical school admission but cut back on residency spots. 

They are decreasing medical school admissions in Quebec...not sure if the rest of Canada will adopt the same approach.

Well, if the government doesn't have enough funding to create more residency spots, makes more sense to cut down the medical school admissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A-Stark said:

Paying tuition does not in any way amount to an implied contract, the result of which is a degree.

The Student-Institution Relationship as Contractual and Private

One of the primary legal theories that partially defines the student-institutional relationship is contract theory.22 While there is at least one very early case that is based in contract theory,23 it was not until the 1970s that contract-based cases began appearing with some regularity.24 In Sutcliffe v Governors of Acadia University, the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that “there was clearly a contract here between the appellant and the university and it is this contract which governed the relationship between the parties.”25 This principle has been consistently upheld in judicial decisions over the past 40 years.26

Several judicial decisions have suggested that the primary contract is an implied contract to educate. The institution contractually agrees to provide students with the appropriate instruction, educational services, and other resources necessary to complete the educational credential that they are seeking, and to grant them that credential upon successful completion of the required courses and other learning activities. The students’ contractual obligation is to pay the required fees, successfully complete the appropriate courses, maintain the required academic standards, and abide by the institution’s policies, rules, regulations, and bylaws.

(From Handbook of Canadian Higher Education Law by Theresa Shanahan, Michelle Nilson, and Li-Jeen Broshko)

You would need to argue that the contract implies not just the conferring of the MD, but also a residency position. (Not the residency spot of your choice, mind you -- just *a* residency position, somewhere).

Quote

Aren't you in residency? (acknowledging the current controversies nonetheless

I'm still suspended, with no idea of a potential return date. Given that it's been 11 weeks since I reported the sexual harassment, and they still haven't even hired an investigator, I'm not holding my breath that they're going to get their act together anytime soon. What else am I going to do while I wait? Might as well keep busy. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:
The Student-Institution Relationship as Contractual and Private

One of the primary legal theories that partially defines the student-institutional relationship is contract theory.22 While there is at least one very early case that is based in contract theory,23 it was not until the 1970s that contract-based cases began appearing with some regularity.24 In Sutcliffe v Governors of Acadia University, the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that “there was clearly a contract here between the appellant and the university and it is this contract which governed the relationship between the parties.”25 This principle has been consistently upheld in judicial decisions over the past 40 years.26

Several judicial decisions have suggested that the primary contract is an implied contract to educate. The institution contractually agrees to provide students with the appropriate instruction, educational services, and other resources necessary to complete the educational credential that they are seeking, and to grant them that credential upon successful completion of the required courses and other learning activities. The students’ contractual obligation is to pay the required fees, successfully complete the appropriate courses, maintain the required academic standards, and abide by the institution’s policies, rules, regulations, and bylaws.

(From Handbook of Canadian Higher Education Law by Theresa Shanahan, Michelle Nilson, and Li-Jeen Broshko)

You would need to argue that the contract implies not just the conferring of the MD, but also a residency position. (Not the residency spot of your choice, mind you -- just *a* residency position, somewhere).

This will be hard. The institution agrees to provide students with the appropriate instruction.. educational services.. for the conferral of the MD degree, not a residency position. Residency is outside the contractual scope between the institution (i.e., the university) and the student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:
The Student-Institution Relationship as Contractual and Private

One of the primary legal theories that partially defines the student-institutional relationship is contract theory.22 While there is at least one very early case that is based in contract theory,23 it was not until the 1970s that contract-based cases began appearing with some regularity.24 In Sutcliffe v Governors of Acadia University, the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that “there was clearly a contract here between the appellant and the university and it is this contract which governed the relationship between the parties.”25 This principle has been consistently upheld in judicial decisions over the past 40 years.26

Several judicial decisions have suggested that the primary contract is an implied contract to educate. The institution contractually agrees to provide students with the appropriate instruction, educational services, and other resources necessary to complete the educational credential that they are seeking, and to grant them that credential upon successful completion of the required courses and other learning activities. The students’ contractual obligation is to pay the required fees, successfully complete the appropriate courses, maintain the required academic standards, and abide by the institution’s policies, rules, regulations, and bylaws.

(From Handbook of Canadian Higher Education Law by Theresa Shanahan, Michelle Nilson, and Li-Jeen Broshko)

You would need to argue that the contract implies not just the conferring of the MD, but also a residency position. (Not the residency spot of your choice, mind you -- just *a* residency position, somewhere).

I'm still suspended, with no idea of a potential return date. Given that it's been 11 weeks since I reported the sexual harassment, and they still haven't even hired an investigator, I'm not holding my breath that they're going to get their act together anytime soon. What else am I going to do while I wait? Might as well keep busy. :P

The limitation with this argument is right there in the quote - by paying tuition, the institution has an obligation to education and confer credentials. It does not say anything beyond that, including residency.

Where an argument might have a sliver of hope is in suing the schools over false advertising. Medical schools have never guaranteed a residency spot, but have frequently promised that their graduates will be competitive for any residency spot in the country. That was and likely still is a very defensible position, as over 90% of graduates land residency spots still, even if the numbers have fallen. However, we've now reached a point where it could be demonstrated that some graduates will be unable to secure a residency spot regardless of merit and that, therefore, medical schools have made and continue to make implications to students that they cannot hope to meet. This would construe misrepresentation to potential applicants for which the schools have profited from (in the form of tuition) that they might not have done so otherwise.

Even that's a stretch, as the schools would argue that they had no knowledge or say over the changing landscape of residency positions. Any suit would likely apply to recent graduates only, those affected by the significantly worsened market. And false advertising is a tough legal bar to clear regardless, especially in something like education, and the recourse for that would likely not be anywhere near what's hoped for (refunding of tuition at best) with significant legal costs to boot. An approach like this still seems likely to fail, but there's at least some ambiguity in the law to be argued. Going for a breach of contract suit doesn't really pass the smell test, as no contract has been violated, even when considered implied contracts of education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ralk said:

The limitation with this argument is right there in the quote - by paying tuition, the institution has an obligation to education and confer credentials. It does not say anything beyond that, including residency.

Where an argument might have a sliver of hope is in suing the schools over false advertising.

From the same book, on negligent misrepresentation:

Colleges and universities have also been held accountable to students in tort law for negligent misrepresentations in promotional or other similar material.168 In addition, universities have been found liable for breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation in cases when they have failed to offer courses or programs as advertised. In Chicoine v Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, a student convinced the Ontario Provincial Court that a case involving a course he claimed had not been taught as offered and advertised should proceed to trial.169 In Bell v St. Thomas University, the court held that a student had a contractual right to retake a course without conditions because a statement in the calendar permitted course repetitions without special permission.170When a program placed certain conditions upon the student’s repeating the course, the university was found to have breached the contract. In a 2000 Ontario Supreme Court case, a student successfully sued Lakehead University for negligent misrepresentation when it cancelled a program to which he had been admitted without informing him when it first became aware that the program would not be offered.171 Perhaps the most egregious case of this type was Olar v Laurentian University, which involved a student who had completed two years of study at Laurentian’s School of Engineering on the understanding that he would receive full credit for his courses at a number of other Ontario engineering schools, as was clearly stated in the university’s calendar, student guide, promotional materials, and website.172 While he was accepted into engineering at another university, he did not receive full credit for his courses and was required to take an extra year to complete his program. Because Olar had relied on Laurentian’s misrepresentations regarding the transferability of its engineering courses, he was awarded damages in excess of $120,000. Hickey-Button v Loyalist College of Applied Arts & Technology is similar in many respects. In this case, a group of students entered the nursing program at Loyalist College with the understanding, based on Loyalist’s promotional materials and other representations, that they could transfer to Queen’s University after two years to complete their nursing degree.173 When negotiations between Loyalist and Queen’s broke down, this option was not available, and the affected students successfully petitioned the court to be certified as a class in a class-action suit for breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation.174Crerar v Grande Prairie Regional College addressed the question of whether institutions could be held liable for the provision of erroneous oral advice.175 In this case, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that students have an obligation to verify the accuracy of oral advice given to them, rather than relying exclusively on such advice.

I mean, you might as well go for both negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and see if either one of them sticks...

Quote

the recourse for that would likely not be anywhere near what's hoped for (refunding of tuition at best) with significant legal costs to boot.

I mean, it would be a class action. So the legal fees would be shared (and could be paid via fundraising). And although getting 4 years of tuition back doesn't make up for not matching...could you imagine if hundreds or thousands of unmatched applicants were awarded 4 years of tuition fees, all at once? That would be a fairly significant hit to the universities...

Anyway, even if it failed, just the attempt to get it certified as a class action would likely draw enough media attention to drive a decent political lobbying effort for a legislative solution, which is what is ultimately needed here to fix the issue for future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PetiteAgour said:

I have to agree with A-Stark on this one. No career guarantees a job after getting a degree. 
It might rub the public the wrong way as the reasoning comes off as entitled. I'm interested in what the lawyers have to say.
Also, it always amazes me how they increased medical school admission but cut back on residency spots. 

Is a residency position a job or paid training?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ana_safavi said:

From the same book, on negligent misrepresentation:

Colleges and universities have also been held accountable to students in tort law for negligent misrepresentations in promotional or other similar material.168 In addition, universities have been found liable for breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation in cases when they have failed to offer courses or programs as advertised. In Chicoine v Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, a student convinced the Ontario Provincial Court that a case involving a course he claimed had not been taught as offered and advertised should proceed to trial.169 In Bell v St. Thomas University, the court held that a student had a contractual right to retake a course without conditions because a statement in the calendar permitted course repetitions without special permission.170When a program placed certain conditions upon the student’s repeating the course, the university was found to have breached the contract. In a 2000 Ontario Supreme Court case, a student successfully sued Lakehead University for negligent misrepresentation when it cancelled a program to which he had been admitted without informing him when it first became aware that the program would not be offered.171 Perhaps the most egregious case of this type was Olar v Laurentian University, which involved a student who had completed two years of study at Laurentian’s School of Engineering on the understanding that he would receive full credit for his courses at a number of other Ontario engineering schools, as was clearly stated in the university’s calendar, student guide, promotional materials, and website.172 While he was accepted into engineering at another university, he did not receive full credit for his courses and was required to take an extra year to complete his program. Because Olar had relied on Laurentian’s misrepresentations regarding the transferability of its engineering courses, he was awarded damages in excess of $120,000. Hickey-Button v Loyalist College of Applied Arts & Technology is similar in many respects. In this case, a group of students entered the nursing program at Loyalist College with the understanding, based on Loyalist’s promotional materials and other representations, that they could transfer to Queen’s University after two years to complete their nursing degree.173 When negotiations between Loyalist and Queen’s broke down, this option was not available, and the affected students successfully petitioned the court to be certified as a class in a class-action suit for breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation.174Crerar v Grande Prairie Regional College addressed the question of whether institutions could be held liable for the provision of erroneous oral advice.175 In this case, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that students have an obligation to verify the accuracy of oral advice given to them, rather than relying exclusively on such advice.

I mean, you might as well go for both negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and see if either one of them sticks...

I mean, it would be a class action. So the legal fees would be shared (and could be paid via fundraising). And although getting 4 years of tuition back doesn't make up for not matching...could you imagine if hundreds or thousands of unmatched applicants were awarded 4 years of tuition fees, all at once? That would be a fairly significant hit to the universities...

Anyway, even if it failed, just the attempt to get it certified as a class action would likely draw enough media attention to drive a decent political lobbying effort for a legislative solution, which is what is ultimately needed here to fix the issue for future generations.

All of these examples still relate to promises concerning completion of a degree, not to results after the degree was conferred.

Schools would fight any such suit heavily, as liability for outcomes after a degree is conferred would be a very dangerous standard for them to be held to. Even in a class action, legal costs would likely to be significant. Such a suit could be used to drive voluntary changes, but to what end? Medical schools are already scrambling from the rise in unmatched graduates, and there's already fairly significant pressure on them to make such changes. There's plenty of opportunity to push media attention - the media's already got an ear on this situation and is actively reporting on it, because Doctor Drama sells well enough. From a legislative angle, there's constant lobbying on the provincial governments to make changes as well, and a lawsuit brought against the schools wouldn't directly affect them.

Again, you can always sue someone or some entity. I'm sure there are lawyers willing to pick up this work. Yet, what are the likely outcomes for those involved in the suit? A best-case scenario doesn't result in a residency spot, but relatively small financial compensation that will be offset by legal fees. Worse case scenario is more money lost on legal fees, more time spent without advancing a career as a physician, and, even if it improves the situation for future students, no better options for residency for current ones.

It feels good to kick the system in the teeth through legal action, but there are better pathways. It's not as glamorous or necessarily satisfying, but continuing to work on residency applications and doing whatever you can to develop contacts and support for the next cycle; using existing or novel organizations to do direct lobbying without a lawsuit to push for changes; using interested media to push the situation to the public. Lawsuits are great if you win and win handily. In this case, they seem far more likely to be self-destructive than constructive.

7 hours ago, sangria said:

Is a residency position a job or paid training?

Both, technically, though I doubt it matters much from a legal perspective. You'd be hard-pressed to sue an undergrad program for failing to get into a post-graduate training or professional training like a Master's or an MD program, any more than you would for failing to land a job, unless they somehow flatly promised that you'd be able to do so on graduation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should consider pushing for better alternatives for unmatched CMG’s. Seems to me like an unmatched CMG has very few options:( In BC, an IMG can participate the clinical traineeship program which is basically an educational licence. It allows the person almost the same responsibility as a final med student. Not sure if that exists for CMG in different provinces. This would be a great alternative to not graduating and repaying tuition for another year. Secondly, in Alberta there is a clinical assistant program in place for IMGs. The training is 6 months, and you basically work under direct supervision in some capacity as physician while getting paid. This isn’t ideal but this is better than having no capacity for the skills that CMG’s have to offer. At least this will allow a CMG an alternative career, or a chance to get paid for the year they are unmatched while staying clinically relevant. I think we should have something better for unmatched CMGs while he government sorts out the current situation. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points and analysis by ralk.  To clarify one of the issues - there's a big difference between guaranteed residency position for every CMG and guaranteeing that some people will go unmatched due to limited space.  The latter is the situation we're in now - but pretty much anyone would be happy to go back to the situation in the recent past, where about a dozen or so CMGs went unmatched across the country, but not due to a global lack of positions.  As such, it seems to me as if the current situation will need to be resolved in the political arena since there's clearly an ethical and financial argument (from a public point of view) but not necessarily a legal one.  While there are differences between medicine and other professions, I doubt medicine could be considered sufficiently unique to merit a guaranteed job after graduation - in other words the comparator argument would really deflate any kind of guarantee.  

Without trying to sound too much like a broken record, not only will the unmatched CMGs be in a very difficult situation - as being unmatched means the chances of matching in the future are significantly lower, ultimately there will be direct repercussions for all CMGs.  I don't see how banks can continue extend large LOCs with rates below prime when unmatched CMGs may have good reason to default - especially given that there's an increasing number of unmatched CMGs.  So credit should logically become tighter in the future as one example. 

I suppose if CMGs are going to be equated to IMGs, it should be noted that while CMGs still have a huge initial advantage in matching in Canada, outside of Canada IMGs likely have the upper hand.  They may be able to match in the country they’re doing their training and most will also be aiming for US residency positions and probably encouraged and supported by the IMG school.  Canadian faculties (and the federal government through health Canada) seem reluctant to embrace the idea of sending CMGs to the US, where logically this is the only place that could accept "surplus" graduates.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ralk said:

The limitation with this argument is right there in the quote - by paying tuition, the institution has an obligation to education and confer credentials. It does not say anything beyond that, including residency.

Where an argument might have a sliver of hope is in suing the schools over false advertising. Medical schools have never guaranteed a residency spot, but have frequently promised that their graduates will be competitive for any residency spot in the country. 

 

Let's not forget the fact that the OP did indeed secure a residency after medical school, and withdrew at his own accord. So when do we start talking how we should be differentiating between those who quit their residency to those who couldn't match straight out of med? Does your med school owe it to you 4 years out to quit a residency and be 'guaranteed' another spot? When they can't even match their first-time applicants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, marrakech said:

I don't see how banks can continue extend large LOCs with rates below prime when unmatched CMGs may have good reason to default - especially given that there's an increasing number of unmatched CMGs.  So credit should logically become tighter in the future as one example. 

That's actually a very salient point that is seldom heard about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one match the unmatched cmgs who only wish to persue one of a few highly sought out residencies? How do you balance the need/positions available versus what the student wants to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...