By Dr. Jassam

I was struck by something that Dr. Sohail Ghandi shared a while ago on the Medical Post daily newsletter. He brought up the fact that every “president” of the OMA should commit to prioritizing the needs of the corporation over those of the members. This commitment implies that they should place the interests of the organization above the doctors who elected them and pay a substantial monthly fee. It’s worth noting that these doctors are the very people who contribute to the “president’s” salary for leading the organization.

To put this into perspective, it’s akin to a school principal pledging to prioritize the school’s needs over those of the students, or a military unit leader focusing on their unit’s interests rather than the well-being of the soldiers stationed at the frontlines or a court judge to prioritize the court’s demands over emphasizing the truth, or a team coach to align with the club rather than focusing on the players and winning.

I am wondering whether these “presidents” are informed about such oath before running for elections or only after winning them. Moreover, what repercussions would they face if they choose not to sign it?

I wrote an article several years ago raising questions about the roles of certain organizations including the OMA, but received no answers. Now, it has become evident that their primary role is to preserve their status.

The motivation behind Dr. Ghandi’s decision to share his confession remains unclear. Was it an attempt to promote transparency, express regret, seek forgiveness, or simply an exercise in expressive writing?

Equally noteworthy is the response from my fellow doctors to Dr. Ghandi’s revelations. Surprisingly, some seemed unfazed, with a few even expressing gratitude for his article. This left me pondering whether I might have misinterpreted the situation. Is this a commonplace occurrence, and am I perhaps exaggerating its significance? Or could it be that my colleagues believe it’s too late to voice objections, given that Dr. Ghandi is no longer in that position? Or maybe because certain issues have become clearer, and it appears that the dilemma has been resolved?

Yet, the annual election of a new “president” persists, and they end up making the same commitment, placing us in a secondary position. We’re not a priority for these “leaders” ; we’re merely a source of their salaries and those of their colleagues.

To me, the oath signed by the elected “presidents” is a clear lack of devotion to the OMA members . I believe that they owe all doctors an apology. It’s high time they refuse to sign such oath and advocate for its removal. The primary allegiance, in my opinion, should be to the doctors they represent, and only then to the organization.