Not fit to be a doctor?

Two years ago, a California state district court ruling mandated the Association of American Medical Colleges permit individuals with learning disabilities – under the definition provided by the state of California – to receive extended time on their Medical College Admission Test.  

Four students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities successfully had sued the AAMC, claiming they were denied an education in medicine because they were not permitted extended time on their test.

Sadly, this last week, a higher court of appeals overturned this ruling.

The court ruled that despite the fact that California law was more expansive in its definition of disability, extended time should be allowed only for individuals who are considered disabled under the more narrow definition provided by federal law.

Preparedness for medical school should not be determined by how quickly an individual can fill in the circles on a Scantron. Surely students applying to medical schools have displayed talent and intelligence by receiving undergraduate degrees.

Provided the opportunity to go to medical school, students with disabilities would have plenty of opportunities to have their mettle tested before they become doctors.

To those who suggest that their use of extended time is a reflection on their inability to perform well in the emergency room, where split-second decisions are required, a more enlightened understanding of disabilities is required.  

Their lack of expeditiousness on a test does not translate into their lack of ability in the field. Furthermore, only a small percentage of doctors work in such conditions. The medical world does not soley consist of “ER” and “Grey’s Anatomy.”

What about the family practitioner or the pediatrician? Doctors often deliberate, and shouldn’t we appreciate them for it? Isn’t their value in taking time and being careful in your diagnosis?   

The current ruling utilizes the “slippery slope” argument. It suggests that if the court were to rule in favor of plaintiffs, thus allowing them extended time on the test, then the integrity of the test would be continually challenged and compromised. Soon anybody would be allowed extended time.  

But what the court fails to recognize is that the “slippery slope” logic is better utilized in opposition to its rulings. If we are to disallow these individuals extended time, aren’t we opening up the door for further discrimination based on disability?

Such a precedent would only allow the court to further disenfranchise capable individuals with disabilities from pursuing their desired field. While it is fair for the AAMC to standardize the MCAT test, it must accommodate those who, despite their disabilities, are capable of succeeding in the medical field.