Though likely to be considered politically incorrect, it is no less a viable option to help diminish the predicted critical shortage of practicing geriatricians anticipated over the next twenty-five years. That solution being to consider, on a case by case basis, the vast pool of physicians that have been sanctioned or revoked by the medical boards of the states in which they were formerly practicing. Granted, a percentage should not be considered for this proposed track because of either flagrant negligence and malpractice or total lack of concern for patient welfare. However, after inspection of this vast melting pot, it will shortly become evident that of the entire group, a significant number had been decimated by adverse political agendas as preparation for acquiring another scalp for the boardroom rack of statistics necessary for the appearance of protecting public welfare. Many such physicians, having inadequate funding for the battle of reentering the active practice of medicine, are presently languishing, relegated to lives of inactivity, humiliation, despair and depression. Memory of their invaluable years in clinical practice is diminishing along with the atrophy of their hippocampii. For such physicians, there is no fast track for redemption and rehabilitation as presently exists for those physicians being fortunate enough to be branded as drug addicted individuals, where all past sins and felonious records can be abolished and washed away to circumvent public inspection.

Certainly, this consideration is not for the slight of heart, but must be considered if not adopted, on concerns for viability, efficacy and service to the presently underserved geriatric population. Regardless of one’s contentions, it is not uncommon for revoked physicians to encounter public scorn and labeling as pedophiles, perverts, predatory monsters or gross criminals; consequently, a pathway circumventing such issues would be required for the rehabilitation of the selected applicants as is currently in place for sanctioned drug addicted physicians.

In consideration of the above proposal, a minimum of medical education, either recent passage of a general medical examination as proof of competency and a geriatric internship, where deemed necessary, would be required. Likely, there will be protests of second guessing the decisions of prestigious medical boards; considering the recent cases of Kobe Bryant and the Duke University lacrosse team, such second guessing would better serve the needs of those underserved geriatric patients and would be long over due.

B. D. Rosen

bdr3@cox.net