Should Kashmir Ban Private Practice?

A blanket ban may sound like reform, but the real cure lies in rebuilding public trust and revitalizing hospitals from within.

- Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili

The question keeps returning to Kashmir's public debate with the persistence of a recurring fever: should doctors in government service be barred from private practice?

A recent demand by a lawmaker from Anantnag has brought it to the front pages again, stirring emotions and dividing opinion across hospital corridors and dinner tables alike.

It is an issue that touches the ethics of care, the economics of survival, and the state of our healthcare system itself.

At first glance, the idea of a ban appears simple and appealing. Supporters argue that government doctors should dedicate themselves entirely to public hospitals. After all, taxpayers pay their salaries. Patients, often poor and exhausted after long journeys to district hospitals, deserve a doctor's full attention. Instead, they often hear that the specialist they came to see is "away" or "unavailable," which many take to mean "at a private clinic." This fuels resentment and mistrust.

A ban, proponents say, would ensure presence, accountability, and focus. Doctors would finally be where they are most needed: inside public hospitals, serving the poor.

The argument has another layer. Banning private practice, many believe, could open the door for young doctors.

Kashmir's medical colleges produce hundreds of graduates every year, but many remain unemployed or underemployed. If senior specialists were compelled to commit fully to government hospitals, or if some left the service altogether, fresh talent could step in.

The system would renew itself, and patients would benefit from the enthusiasm of young, well-trained doctors.

But beneath this appealing simplicity lies a complex reality.