General Health-Work; He filed a lawsuit in the Council of State for the annulment of the TUK decision, which was "contrary to the purpose and essence of specialist training" in dentistry. A statement was made regarding the case.
Stating that there are unlawful and illegal situations in many aspects in the system that is intended to be introduced by the TUK decision in question, the union said, "Doctoral education is an academic higher education process that aims to produce scientific research and original scientific knowledge within the higher education system. On the other hand, specialization education in dentistry is not only aimed at producing academic knowledge, but is a special vocational education that aims to provide clinical competence, practice skills, professional responsibility and patient management competence specific to the field of specialization in a certain branch of dentistry. The Ministry of Health, and therefore the TUK, primarily provides doctoral education and "While the sharp line between specialist training should be taken into account, an attempt was made to introduce a system that is against the law and the law without complying with this situation."
The union continued its statement as follows: "Additional Article 14 of Law No. 1219 gives the Board of Specialization in Medicine the authority to determine the educational curricula of the specialties, their basic areas of practice, and the framework of their duties and powers. However, this authority is not the authority to create a new method of obtaining a specialization certificate that is NOT PROVIDED IN THE LAW. In other words, TUK can determine the specialization curriculum, determine the basic areas of practice of specialties, organize rotations, and determine the scientific principles of the training process. However, TUK can determine the scientific principles of the training process of the specialization system determined by law. Apart from this, tuk cannot create a new specialization model such as "doctorate + certain score in DUS + procedure list + completion of missing rotations entered with a separate code determined by ÖSYM". With this decision, tuk has exceeded the legal authority given to it.
"LABOR EXPLOITATION IS THE SUBJECT"
The statement was concluded as follows: It is clear that dentists who are successful in entering DUS for specialty training, receive training as specialist students and complete all rotations, clinical practices and training obligations in the specialty curriculum, and people who have a doctorate in the same specialty but have gone through a different training regime, are entitled to the same specialty certificate upon completion of some additional conditions, which will create serious problems in terms of the correct application of the principle of equality. In this context, a situation contrary to the principle of equality may arise for dentists who have gained the title of specialist by going through legal processes, and labor exploitation may occur for dentists receiving doctoral training by determining arbitrary clinical practices and procedure numbers.
In its decision dated 24-25.03.2016, Meeting No: 70 and Decision No: 684, TUK included an evaluation as follows: "Specialization education should not be considered to replace doctoral education" in terms of dentistry. Despite this, in the current situation, the same TUK is trying to give "specialist status" to dentists who have completed their doctoral education or are receiving doctoral education. This situation reveals that there is a great contradiction on the part of TUK.
Our Union has filed an annulment lawsuit in the 8th Chamber of the Council of State, requesting a stay of execution, against the decision taken by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Medical Specialization to erroneously keep doctoral education and specialty education almost equivalent to each other.
