Australia is desperately short of doctors, with many towns without a GP and many people in big towns and cities without ready access to a GP. The end result for some of these people is an unfortunate health outcome, which is a considerate euphemism in much the same vein as collateral damage.
In my column in The Herald today I point out that countering increasing GP numbers is a combination of two facts: one, that most training GPs are women, and, two, that women doctors are likely to work only part-time. It must be very rude to question why 64 per cent of medical school places are given to women, because no-one does, at least publicly. Yet the fact is that most of the GPs we train are those least likely to meet our needs. That need is for doctors who work a full week.
Some may say that applicants for medical school are chosen on merit, but should not the prospect of returning value to the community be a matter of merit? And who chooses the merit criteria?
Perhaps the 64 per cent is about positive discrimination, in which case it is negative discrimination against a desperate community. Or does positive discrimination excuse the preference for people likely to become hobby doctors?